Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Delhi High Court Upholds Property Rights and Orders Restoration of Water Tanks and Fire Safety Equipment on Building's Roof"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of property rights and ordered the restoration of essential facilities, including water tanks and fire safety equipment, on the roof of Akarshan Bhawan. The court's decision comes after a dispute over the use of the building's roof and unilateral removal of critical infrastructure.

The court observed, "The installation of the fire equipment and overhead water tanks are essential requirements for the use and enjoyment of the subject building and could not have been unilaterally removed by Respondent No. 4." The removal of these facilities had endangered the safety of the building's occupants.

The case revolved around the rights of the Appellants, who sought a declaration and injunction against the Respondents from making structural changes to the building without statutory permissions. The Appellants claimed easement rights for the maintenance of water tanks and the lift room on the roof.

Respondent No. 4 had purchased the roof rights but acknowledged the Appellants' right to access the roof for maintenance in a compromise deed. Despite this, Respondent No. 4 unilaterally removed the water tanks and fire safety equipment in October 2022.

The court emphasized the importance of these facilities, stating, "The reinstallation of the said equipment is necessary for the renewal of the fire safety certificate," and that "use of toilet facilities in a building is a basic human right."

Furthermore, the court directed that if Respondent No. 4 obtains building sanction for constructing an additional floor, the common facilities must be shifted to the roof of the new floor, but until then, Appellants must have uninterrupted access to the existing roof.

The judgment also mandated that the Appellants address deficiencies in fire safety and obtain the necessary Fire Safety Certificate. They were directed to provide a valid license for the existing lift in the building.

Date of Decision: 1 February 2024

Akarshan Bhawan VS Sushil Kumar Jain And Others

 

Similar News