Manoj Kumar Ohri, J
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim to be owners/occupants of Flat Nos.33
(Ground Floor) and 35 (First Floor), Nehru Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019, have assailed the NOC/permission issued on 06.12.2018 for
installation of common lift in Block 3, Nehru Apartments.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the NOC/permission has been granted in complete disregard of the Corporation’s own
policy. He further submits that the application for installation of lift did not even meet the criteria of consent from 50% of flat owners (excluding
ground floor), as one of the applicants namely, Shri Brij Mohan Bakshi had expired and another applicant-Shri H.L. Bhardwaj has been in coma.
 Learned counsel has also contended that the petitioners have suggested alternate site(s), which is more suitable for installation of lifts, however, the
said suggestion has not been considered in right perspective by the MCD at behest of the private respondents. He further submits that installation of a
lift in terms permitted under the NOC would interfere with the easement rights of the petitioners, inasmuch as air and ventilation to their premises
would be affected.
 Lastly, it is submitted that even petitioner No.2 has no objection if a lift is installed at the alternate site instead of the site for which NOC/permission
has been granted.
3. Learned ASC for respondent No.1, on the other hand, alongwith learned counsel for the private respondents, has defended the NOC/permission
granted by the respondent/Corporation. He submits that the application was received from 6 applicants, who met the criteria of consent from 50% of
flat owners (excluding ground floor) at the time.
 Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 additionally submits that after the demise of Shri Brij Mohan Bakshi, his son namely, Anish Bakshi, on
the basis of authority letter from his mother (transferee of Flat No.38, second floor) joined as a co-applicant in the application. He further submits that
so far as applicant-Shri H.L. Bhardwaj is concerned, his wife became a co-applicant and signed on his behalf.
4. Learned ASC for respondent No.1 further submits that NOC/permission dated 06.12.2018 has been granted by the answering respondent subject to
certain terms and conditions, including applicants’ obtaining consent from 50% owners/occupiers of upper floors of the aforesaid block (excluding
the ground floor).
5. At this stage, Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for respondent No.2, submits that the society has 10 blocks and lifts in 9 blocks have already been
installed at similar spot for which NOC in the present case has been granted.
6. On specific query, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has also submitted that while granting the NOC/permission, all aspects relating to structural
safety and security are kept in mind.
7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. The Procedure for issuance of NOC for Installation of Lifts in Group Housing Flats built by DDA is governed by a policy which was initially issued
by DDA and later adopted by the Corporation vide Office Order dated 13.05.2016. The pre-requisites for grant of NOC/permission as per the said
policy are as under:-
“1.1 Pre-requisite for grant of Permission/NOC:
(i) Consent from owners using common staircase in that block is a pre-requisite (50% or more excluding ground floor) who will be
beneficiary due to installation of lift. The consent from ground floor owner is advisable but not mandatory.
(ii) The applicants are advised to propose a separate lift structure independent of the existing building of the existing building structure
stability of the existing structure.
(iii) The NDMCE is at liberty to take actions against unauthorized construction/additions/ alteration and encroachment as per their policy
and provisions of DMC Act.
(iv) In order to address the concern primarily of the ground floor allottees regarding access to their flat, natural light and ventilation, the
applicant should propose the lift and the lift structure preferable on the blind wall i.e. the wall which does not have any door/ window the
existing structure so that the natural light and ventilation of the flat is not affected.
(v) Recommendation of lift manufacturing agency (preferable as per approved list of CPWD) with regard to technical feasibility, location of
left well and safety aspects in respect of installation must be followed by the applicants.
(vi) Certificate from registered Structured Engineer/ Architect (on their letter head) stating that the structural design .of the lift well and
connecting bridge wherever required is as per provisions of the prevailing NBD (National Building Code).
(vii) Four sets of building plans indicating location of proposed lift well and connecting bridge if required duly/ signed by registered
Architect and proposing/ secondary applicants/President of Management Committee (MC) of CGHS.
(viii) Undertaking regarding maintenance/operational aspect, safety requirements and its cost as per Annexure-A.
(ix) Undertaking to obtain NOC from Delhi Fire Service(wherever applicable) Lift Inspector and Power/Electricity Distribution Company.
(x) NOC from registered RWA (in case of DDA Flats)/MC of CGHS in which lift is proposed to be installed in case any shifting of services is
required.
(xi) Indemnity Bond from all proposing applicants* in case of flats built by DDA/Management Committee (MC) of CGHS indemnifying to
keep NDMC harmless from any claim which crop-up against the NDMC due to erection of lift/Lift-well and connecting bridge.
*Applicants shall belong to two categories i.e. Proposing Member(s) and Secondary Member(s).
While proposing Members are those who are currently using one common staircase only and contributing to the cost of installation of lifts,
Secondary Members are those who are using common staircase but not contributing to the cost. However, consent for installation of lifts is
given by them. Other, residents of the stairway will be Uninterested members. In case they get interested in participating at a later date, they
may, with the consent of the Proposing members share the costs (capital+ operation + maintenance cost) and use the lift.â€
9. From a perusal of the pre-requisites for grant of NOC/permission, as mentioned in the policy adopted by respondent No.1, it is clear that consent of
50% of the persons occupying flats on the upper floors is required for installation of a lift. The consent of the occupier of the ground floor is only
advisory and not mandatory.
10. In the present case, it has been stated that occupiers, who have given their consent for grant of NOC/permission, have old and aged family
members who find it difficult to climb stairs. In fact, one of the petitioners has also reportedly undergone heart surgery.
11. This Court is mindful of the fact that at times, families comprise of old and sick individuals. As per the policy framed by the DDA and later
adopted by respondent No.1, the installation of lifts comes handy for such people. The said aspect also finds mention in decisions of Co-ordinate
Benches of this Court in Shaik Abdul Hameed v. Delhi Development Authority & Others reported as 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2865, K.M. Gupta &
Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7492, Deepak Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors, W.P.(C)
11913/2016 and Saurabh Jain and Ors. v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12140.
12. A Status Report had been placed on record on behalf of the Corporation on 21.02.2022 with respect to the proposal for alternate site suggested by
the petitioners, which reads as under:-
“3. That in pursuance of above order, subordinate officials of deponent conducted inspection on 11/02/2022 and inspected all the
alternative sites as proposed by the petitioners. After examining all the proposals, a conclusion was drawn that site for which SDMC has
already granted permission is best suited for erection of common lift. It does not affect the provision of natural light and ventilation of any
of the flat. As a matter of fact, a number of common lifts are installed at identical place in Nehru Apartment.â€
13. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as the Status Report placed on record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
NOC/permission granted by the respondent/Corporation. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed alongwith the pending applications. Needless to
state, the respondent(s) shall ensure that the lifts are installed with adequate precautions keeping in mind the structural safety of the building/Block.
