{"id":20392,"date":"2002-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002"},"modified":"2019-02-28T10:11:58","modified_gmt":"2019-02-28T04:41:58","slug":"metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 VIIAD Delhi 891, 97 (2002) DLT 249, 2002 (62) DRJ 246<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: J Kapoor<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> J.D. Kapoor, J. (Oral) <\/p>\n<p>1. Admittedly defendant No. 3 is a tenant of the<br \/>\nplaintiff firm in respect of the property No.14 and 14\/1<br \/>\nplot No. 15, Block 80A Krishna Market Pahar Ganj, New<br \/>\nDelhi. The suit property is situated at 1634-35 Main<br \/>\nBazar Pahar Ganj, New Delhi of which the plaintiff is<br \/>\nowner. Some time in 1991, the plaintiff firm and its<br \/>\npartners had filed eviction petition against defendant<br \/>\nNo. 3 on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section<br \/>\n14(I)(e) read with Section 25(b) of the Delhi Rent<br \/>\nControl Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. As a counter blast, defendant No. 3 i.e. the<br \/>\ntenant made a complaint to the Municipal Corporation of<br \/>\nDelhi against the plaintiff-firm that it has raised huge<br \/>\nunauthorised constructions in the suit property. On<br \/>\npersistent representation of defendant No. 3 the DDA<br \/>\nprosecuted sh. Nand Lal Sharma one of the partners of the<br \/>\nplaintiff under Section 29 of the Delhi Development Act.<br \/>\nHowever, the said criminal proceeding ended in acquittal<br \/>\non the ground that the property in question was being put<br \/>\nto commercial use much before the master plan came into<br \/>\nexistence.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It is averred that on the frivolous<br \/>\nrepresentation of defendant No. 3, the Lt. Governor of Delhi<br \/>\ni.e. defendant No. 2 has passed some order directing<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 MCD to take action against the suit<br \/>\nproperty. However this fact came to the notice of the<br \/>\nplaintiff when on 11th June, 1993 one Mr. Kardam, Junior<br \/>\nEngineer of pahar Gunj Zone of MCD visited the site for<br \/>\ninspection and told that there were orders from the<br \/>\nLt.Governor for demolishing the basement.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. According to the plaintiff the alleged basement<br \/>\nis not the basement as it is the mezzanine floor that<br \/>\nexists between the ground and the first floor. The height<br \/>\nof the mezzanine floor form the original plinth level is 7<br \/>\nfeet whereas the upper floor of the mezzanine floor has a<br \/>\nheight of 7&#8242;-9&#8243;. The lower height of the plinth level of<br \/>\nthe property according to the plaintiff is the result of<br \/>\nthe repair and raising of the level of the road from time<br \/>\nto time during the past 60 years. The plinth level of the<br \/>\nsuit property is lower than the road level because of the<br \/>\nfilling of malba to stop entry of rain water into the<br \/>\nbuilding, though the height of the first floor and the<br \/>\nceiling of the ground floor was about 14&#8242;-9&#8243;.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The instant suit has been filed on the premise<br \/>\nthat no show cause notice for sealing or demolishing the<br \/>\nbasement as contemplated under Sections 343 and 344(1) of<br \/>\nthe Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 has been served<br \/>\nupon the plaintiff though there exists a threat of demolition of the said basement.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. According to MCD the plaintiff was booked for<br \/>\nunauthorised construction on 25th June, 1993 and<br \/>\nthereafter a fresh show cause notice No. 124005 dated<br \/>\n30-7-1993 for the unauthorised construction of the<br \/>\nbasement and stair case was issued and served upon the<br \/>\nplaintiff Shri Nand Lal Sharma, K.L. Sharma and Davinder<br \/>\nKumar but no reply was received form them. Teh<br \/>\nconstruction in question, according to M.C.D., is against<br \/>\nthe building bye laws and is not compoundable. The<br \/>\npreliminary objection raised by M.C.D., is about the<br \/>\nmaintainability of the suit as according to it the same is<br \/>\nbarred by the provision of Section 347-E of the Act.<br \/>\nRight form March, 1996 when unauthorised construction was<br \/>\nnoticed in the suit property and form time to time when<br \/>\nunauthorised construction was booked demolition was<br \/>\nordered by the M.C.D.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Section 347-E of the Act provides an appeal<br \/>\nbefore the Appellate Tribunal against the impugned action<br \/>\nof defendant No. 1 and specifically debars the jurisdiction<br \/>\nof the civil court. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;347-E. Bar of jurisdiction of<br \/>\nCourts-(1) After the commencement of Section 7<br \/>\nof the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment)<br \/>\nAct, 1984 no court shall entertain any suit<br \/>\napplication or other proceedings in respect of<br \/>\nany order or notice appealable under Section<br \/>\n343 or Section 347B and no such order or<br \/>\nnotice shall be called in question otherwise<br \/>\nthan by preferring an appeal under those<br \/>\nsections.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) Notwithstanding anything contained<br \/>\nin Sub-section (1) every suit, application or<br \/>\nother proceeding pending in any court<br \/>\nimmediately before the commencement of Section<br \/>\n7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation<br \/>\n(Amendment) Act 1984 in respect of any order<br \/>\nor notice appealable under Section 343 or<br \/>\nSection 347B shall continue to be dealt with<br \/>\nand disposed of by that court as if the said<br \/>\nsection had not been brought into force.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The instant suit has been filed in view of the<br \/>\nJudgment of the Supreme Court in  Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD<br \/>\nand Ors. 50 (1993) DLT 492(SC) whereby the remedy by way of<br \/>\ncivil suit is available in case the authority has not<br \/>\nserved with the notice either under Section 343 or 344 or<br \/>\n345-A of the MCD Act by way of either sealing the premises<br \/>\nor demolishing the same.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance<br \/>\non the report of the Local Commissioner appointed during<br \/>\nthe proceedings to ascertain whether the construction<br \/>\nsought to be demolished is the basement or not. Though<br \/>\nthe Architect has found that the area in question<br \/>\nmeasuring 19&#8242;.3 x 21&#8242;.3&#8243; is having height of 7&#8242;.0&#8243; to<br \/>\n7.6&#8243; but still has given the opinion that it is not the<br \/>\nbasement though this structure is situated on the ground<br \/>\nfloor in the mezzanine form. It is for the enforcement<br \/>\nAuthority to ascertain whether particular construction<br \/>\ncomes within the definition of basement or not.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. As is apparent from the provisions of Section<br \/>\n347E,  any action of the MCD either for sealing the<br \/>\nunauthorised construction or demolishing the same it is<br \/>\nchallengeable before the Appellate Tribunal of MCD. The<br \/>\ndefense that the property in question is neither basement<br \/>\nnor unauthorised construction can be raised before the<br \/>\nsaid Tribunal. However the details given by defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1 in paragraph 10 and other paras referred to above<br \/>\nshow that the requisite notices were not only sent to the<br \/>\nplaintiff under Section 29 of the Act itself show the<br \/>\nservice of show cause notices against unauthorised<br \/>\nconstruction. The averments of defendant No. 1 in this<br \/>\nregard need to be reproduced and are as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;For the first time, unauthorised<br \/>\nconstruction of one room by erection of<br \/>\npartition walls at first floor was booked vide<br \/>\nfile No. 89\/B\/UC\/SPZ\/86 dated 31.3.86, secondly<br \/>\nunauthorised construction of five rooms,<br \/>\nverandah and stair case at second floor was<br \/>\nbooked vide file No. 326\/B?\/UC\/SPZ\/87 dated<br \/>\n22.11.87 thirdly unauthorised construction of<br \/>\ntin shed at IIIrd floor was booked vide file<br \/>\nNo. 18\/B\/UC\/SPZ\/90 dt. 22.1.90 and fourthly<br \/>\nunauthorised construction of basement was<br \/>\nbooked vide file No. 230\/B\/UC\/SPZ\/91 dated<br \/>\n25.6.91. A fresh show cause notice No. 124005<br \/>\ndated 30.78.93 for the unauthorised<br \/>\nconstruction of basement and stair case has<br \/>\nalso been issued and served on the owners\/builders.<br \/>\nShri Nand Lal Sharma, Jitender Nath<br \/>\nSharma and Sh. Ravinder Kumar as per law and<br \/>\ndemolition notice No. 116658 dated 17.8.92 was<br \/>\nalso issued and served upon the owner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. The service of these notices have bene validly<br \/>\nproved by DW 1 Ashok Kumar Assistant Engineer (Building)<br \/>\nof the MCD. It is difficult to ram down the throat that<br \/>\nthe Junior Engineer will go to the spot for demolishing<br \/>\nthe property without serving the requisite notice. Even<br \/>\nduring the suit proceedings, the plaintiff had sufficient<br \/>\ninformation as to the service of notices referred to in<br \/>\nparagraph 10 of the written statement. Merely because<br \/>\nsome of the notices have been quashed does not mean that<br \/>\nthese were not served. Nor does it mean that the<br \/>\nplaintiff should have rushed to the Civil Court. Remedy<br \/>\nwas before the Appellate Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The plaintiff has tried to take misplaced<br \/>\nbenefit of the ratio of Shiv Kumar&#8217;s case as the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has taken the view that it is in some special cases<br \/>\nwhere jurisdictional error on the part of the Corporation<br \/>\nis established that a civil suit is maintainable. The<br \/>\nobservations made by the Supreme Court to the effect that<br \/>\nthe court should not entertain the suit in connecting with<br \/>\nthe proceedings initiated for demolition are noteworthy<br \/>\nand need to be reproduced. These are as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;In some special cases where<br \/>\n&#8220;jurisdictional error&#8221; on the part of the<br \/>\nCorporation is established, a suit shall be<br \/>\nmaintainable. According to us.\n<\/p>\n<p> (1) The Court should not<br \/>\nordinarily entertain a suit in<br \/>\nconnection with the proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated for demolition, by the<br \/>\nCommissioner, in terms of Section 343(1)<br \/>\n of the Corporation Act. Teh Court<br \/>\nshould direct the persons aggrieved to<br \/>\npursue the remedy before the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal and then before the<br \/>\nAdministrator in accordance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) The Court should entertain a<br \/>\nsuit questioning  the validity of an<br \/>\norder passed under Section 343 of the<br \/>\nAct, only if the Court is of prima<br \/>\nfacie opinion that the order is nullity<br \/>\nin the eyes of law because of any<br \/>\n&#8220;jurisdictional error&#8221; in exercise of<br \/>\nthe power by the Commissioner or that<br \/>\nthe order is outside the Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 13 In view of the aforesaid facts the suit itself<br \/>\nis barred by the provisions of Section 347(E) of the Act<br \/>\nand is hereby dismissed. However, the plaintiff is<br \/>\ngranted one month time to avail the remedy before the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal and during this period the suit<br \/>\nproperty shall not be demolished.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. With the above observation, suit stands<br \/>\ndisposed of.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VIIAD Delhi 891, 97 (2002) DLT 249, 2002 (62) DRJ 246 Bench: J Kapoor JUDGMENT J.D. Kapoor, J. (Oral) 1. Admittedly defendant No. 3 is a tenant of the plaintiff firm in respect of the property No.14 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 27 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 27 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-28T04:41:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-28T04:41:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1557,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 27 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-28T04:41:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 27 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 27 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-28T04:41:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-28T04:41:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002"},"wordCount":1557,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002","name":"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 27 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-28T04:41:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/metropolis-restaurant-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-27-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Metropolis Restaurant vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &#8230; on 27 February, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}