Judgment:
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) A school known as Sanatan Dharam School is being run in premises No. 755/VIII, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. This building was an old building. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short the Corporation) declared it as a dangerous building and notices under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short the Act) were issued to the occupier for demolishing a part of the same. However, that part of the building was demolished by the Corporation itself and the demolition charges were recovered from Shri Puran Chand, the occupier, respondent herein. During the re-construction of the building, it appears that the Junior Engineer of the Corporation visited the premises on 18th June, 1981, 10th July, 1981, 20th July, 1981, 31st July, 1981,22nd August, 1981 and 24th August, 1981. On these visits it was found that Puran Chand was carrying out unauthorised construction of partition walls, of a loft, he was fixing iron girders and also constructing a stair case. After completing the formalities, six complaints were filed by the Corporation against the respondent all of them alleging contravention of Section 332 of the Act, That Section reads as follows :
'332.No person shall erect or commence to erect any building, or execute any of the works specified in Section 334 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner nor otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and of the bye-laws made under this Act in relation to the erection of buildings or execution of works.'
(2) The Corporation in support of its case produced two witnesses. One of them was a formal witness who proved his authority to file the complaints and conduct the same, on behalf of the Corporation. Public Witness .1 Shri K.K. Sharma is the Junior Engineer who had visited the premises in question on the various dates noticed above. In his examination-in-chief he supported the allegation that unauthorised construction, as alleged, was being carried out in the premises. But in Cross-examination he admitted that in a commercial building, 50% of the covered area can be used for the construction of a loft without obtaining prior permission of the Corporation.
(3) We may notice that the defense of the accused which has been accepted by the learned trial Court was that as per the provisions of clause 67(A)(1) of the building bye-laws construction or re-construction of the loft in built up commercial areas up to the coverage of 50% comes under the definition of repairs. The further defense was that under that very bye-law, reconstruction of a stair case of the same size in the building was also permissible. As we have noticed, the gravamen of the allegations was that the unauthorised construction being carried out was of the loft. It appears that a stair-case was being constructed to reach the loft partition walls were being constructed and steel girders were being fixed for construction of that very loft.
(4) The respondent produced five witnesses in support of his case. The testimony of those witnesses, three of whom were the employees of the Corporation, has been noticed and fully analysed by the learned trial Court. No useful purpose will be served by noticing their testimony all over again. The learned trial court was of the view that the alleged unauthorised construction fell within the purview of the Municipal bye-laws. We may note that the Corporation did not choose to bring on record the sanctioned plans of the building prior to its demolition. It is, thereforee, not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant herein when she says that new or additional construction was being carried out. We see no reason to disagree with the findings of the learned trial Court. In the facts of the case that was the only view possible.
(5) While maintaining the acquittal of the respondent we dismiss the six appeals viz.,: 1. Crl. Appeal No. 223 of 1984. 2. Crl. Appeal No. 224 of 1984. 3. Cil. Appeal No. 225 of 1984. 4. Crl. Appeal No. 226 of 1984. 5. Crl. Appeal No. 227 of 1984. 6. Crl. Appeal No. 228 of 1984.