-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:00 PM
In a decisive affirmation of urban residents' rights, the Supreme Court of India held that municipal corporations cannot compel property owners to construct commercial spaces on ground floors merely because the property lies on a 'mixed-use' street. In South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) Through LRs, the Court categorically declared that the mixed-use designation under MPD-2021 is permissive and not mandatory, and attempts to coerce citizens into commercial use violate both the Master Plan and basic property rights.
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan dismissed the appeal filed by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) and upheld the deemed sanction granted to the respondents' building plans by the MCD Appellate Tribunal, Additional District Judge, and Delhi High Court. The respondents, who own an 85-year-old dilapidated residential house in Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, had been seeking to rebuild their home for exclusive residential use, but were denied sanction for refusing to include commercial space on the ground floor.
“Owners on Mixed-Use Streets May Choose to Build Residential Homes — They Cannot Be Forced to Open Shops”
The central issue before the Court was whether residents on a notified mixed-use street could be compelled to construct a commercial unit on the ground floor. The SDMC contended that construction of a shop on the ground floor was mandatory, even if the owner intended to rebuild only a residence.
Rejecting this argument as irrational and arbitrary, the Court held:
“The Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 makes it amply clear that the areas notified for mixed land use are to be used for commercial purposes to a limited extent... This does not imply that the owners of residential property on notified streets are compelled to develop the property in that manner and apply for change of user.” [Para 10]
The Court relied on the Circular dated 27.05.2009 issued by the MCD itself, which stated:
“The building plans on notified commercial streets/roads **can be sanctioned for commercial use/partly commercial/partly residential/fully residential as per the choice of the applicant.” [Para 11]
This official document clearly undercut the SDMC’s claim that commercial construction was compulsory.
“You Cannot Tell People to Keep Living in Unsafe Homes Because They Won’t Open Shops”
The bench was visibly disturbed by the fact that the respondents had been forced to live in a dangerously dilapidated house for 15 years, simply because the municipality refused to sanction their plans unless they included commercial space. The Court described the house — constructed in 1940 and located on a 300 square yard plot — as being in such condition that it could collapse any time.
The Court observed:
“We are at our wits’ end to understand how the appellant expects the respondents to put up construction in a manner by which the ground portion would be for commercial use… and more particularly, when he has a vested, crystallised legal right to use it for residential purpose for all times to come.” [Para 13]
The bench denounced the SDMC's stand as “illogical”, stating:
“The argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant defies logic – that the respondents may continue to reside in the dilapidated house, but if they want to put up new construction, then it has to be commercial on the ground floor.” [Para 14]
It reminded the SDMC that its role was to protect residents from danger, not create hurdles in lawful reconstruction.
“Concurrent Findings from Tribunal to High Court — No Scope for Supreme Court Interference Under Article 136”
The Court took note of the fact that three judicial/quasi-judicial authorities — the MCD Appellate Tribunal, the Additional District Judge, and the Delhi High Court — had all upheld the deemed sanction of the respondents’ residential building plans. The SDMC’s argument about compulsory commercial use was never raised earlier, and in fact contradicted its own claim that the only defect in the plan was lack of stilt parking.
The Court found no error of law, perversity, or misreading of statutes in the lower courts' decisions, observing:
“We see no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.” [Para 17]
“Harassment Must Cost Public Authorities — ₹10 Lakh Imposed on SDMC for Arbitrary Delay”
In a rare but warranted move, the Supreme Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000 on the South Delhi Municipal Corporation for the 15-year delay, arbitrary obstruction, and suffering caused to the respondents, who are elderly residents.
“In the gross facts and circumstances of this case, and considering the arbitrary and high-handed manner in which the appellant harassed the respondents, we impose costs of ₹10,00,000… to be paid on or before 17.12.2025.” [Para 20]
The Court directed that proof of payment be reported to it, reinforcing the accountability of civic bodies for abusive conduct.
“Right to Build a Home Is Fundamental — Not Subject to Municipal Coercion”
The decision affirms a vital constitutional and statutory principle: residents have a vested, legitimate right to rebuild their homes, and this cannot be subverted by bureaucratic imposition of commercial requirements that are not backed by law.
The bench emphasized that no statute, circular, or Master Plan provision makes commercial construction on mixed-use streets mandatory — rather, the entire scheme is permissive and optional, respecting individual choices of property owners.
“Even the notification… does not support the case put forward by the appellant in any manner.” [Para 14]
The Court concluded with binding directions:
Date of Decision: 6 November 2025
