New Delhi: The menace of hoax bomb threats continued on Tuesday with an email received at Tihar Jail and five hospitals in the city. Police conducted checks and searches but didn’t find anything suspicious on the complexes. The emails were sent between Monday and Tuesday, claiming that the sender had placed “bombs inside the buildings and they would explode in the following hours”.The origin of the mails was a Cyprus-based mailing service company, beeble.com, which had been used to send the mails to hospitals on Sunday too. Police have written to Sikneco Technologies Ltd in Nicosia requesting details of the user. Intelligence agencies, however, suspect that the perpetrators of the hoax were the same email senders from Pakistan who had sent bomb threats to many city schools a few weeks ago. The first email in the latest lot was received at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital on Monday. On Tuesday, four hospitals also informed police about receiving similar messages. The Tihar administration then alerted the local police about the threat email received by the prison. The email read, “I have placed explosive devices inside of your building. They will explode in the following hours. This isn’t a threat; you have a few hours to disarm the bomb or else the blood of innocent people inside of the building will be on your hands. The group called ‘Court’ is behind this massacre (sic).” The message was tagged to more than 15 other email IDs. Searches were conducted at the hospitals and the jail but nothing was found. On Sunday, at least two dozen establishments, among them over a dozen hospitals in Delhi, had received bomb messages from the same server. One of the hospitals affected on Sunday was in Dabri. Two hospitals in north Delhi also received the threat. A similar e-mail was received at the Indira Gandhi International Airport too. Ahmedabad airport also received such mails followed by airports in Jaipur and Lucknow. The cops had carried out searches and sanitised all areas upon receipt of this information but nothing suspicious had been found. Police suspect the same set of senders to be behind the latest threats. “There has been a pattern in which establishments in several states are being targeted to spread panic and cause disruptions,” said a senior police officer. The intelligence agencies have tracked the user of the email accounts to a military cantonment in Faisalabad, Pakistan, strengthening the initial suspicion that the neighbouring country’s deep state, backed by Chinese intelligence, was behind the email threats. The breakthrough was also aided by some key information, informally shared by Russian intelligence. Till now, the cops have written to Russia via Interpol seeking assistance in tracing the sender of the email. They have also prepared a Letters Rogatory, which is a judicial request, to be sent to Russia on the matter.
function loadGtagEvents(isGoogleCampaignActive) {
if (!isGoogleCampaignActive) {
return;
}
var id = document.getElementById('toi-plus-google-campaign');
if (id) {
return;
}
(function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {
t = b.createElement(e);
t.async = !0;
t.defer = !0;
t.src = v;
t.id = 'toi-plus-google-campaign';
s = b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t, s);
})(f, b, e, 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=AW-877820074', n, t, s);
};
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
NEW DELHI: Several hospitals in Delhi, including Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, GTB Hospital, Dada Dev Hospital, and Hedgewar Hospital, received bomb threat emails on Tuesday. Delhi Fire Service officials told media that search operations are under way. According to a DFS official, the spate of calls began at 10.45 am. The first hospital to call was Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital in north Delhi’s Ashok Vihar at 9.45 am.The second call came at 10.55 am from Dada Dev Hospital in Dabri in southwest Delhi, the third at 11.01 am from Hedgewar Hospital in east Delhi’s Farsh Bazar and the fourth at 11.12 am from GTB Hospital in Shahdara, also in east Delhi. “Police and the bomb disposal squad are conducting the checks. We have also conducted checks twice. Nothing suspicious has been found so far,” said V K Sharma, security officer at Hedgewar Hospital. The mail about an explosive in the hospital was received by a doctor at the hospital, he said. On Sunday, two Delhi hospitals – Burari Government Hospital and Sanjay Gandhi Hospital – had received similar threats. “An email was received at Burari Hospital regarding a bomb threat. The local police and Bomb Disposal Teams (BDT) are at the hospital, checking for any suspicious activity. Nothing has been found yet,” Delhi Police had said on Sunday.
function loadGtagEvents(isGoogleCampaignActive) {
if (!isGoogleCampaignActive) {
return;
}
var id = document.getElementById('toi-plus-google-campaign');
if (id) {
return;
}
(function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {
t = b.createElement(e);
t.async = !0;
t.defer = !0;
t.src = v;
t.id = 'toi-plus-google-campaign';
s = b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t, s);
})(f, b, e, 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=AW-877820074', n, t, s);
};
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
Produced By: Jhalko Delhi
Edited By: Amit
Reported By : Divya
Cameraman : Khushilal
Subscribe Please:
वीडियो को पूरा देखे और कमेंट बॉक्स में अपने सुझाव जरूर दे
———————————————————————-
Facebook Page:
Instagram:
Twitter:
सुचना व्हाट्सप्प करे: 9625788761
Whatsapp Group:
Join Telegram Group:
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘Delhi Rent Control Act’) applies to Delhi and New Delhi for the areas as mentioned in the said Act itself. The Delhi Rent Control Act was enacted in the year 1958 and came into force on 09.02.1958. Why was the Delhi Rent Control Act made in the first place? In 1939, World War -II broke out. This caused a shortage of housing.With an aim to protect the tenant’s rights, keeping in view the scarcity of residential space caused by World War -II, the New Delhi House Rent Control Order of 1939 was issued under Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules. This was applicable only to tenancies for residential premises. The aim was to prevent arbitrary and unreasonable increase in rent and eviction of tenants by landlords, which the landlords might be tempted to do, to exploit the scarcity of residential space existing at that time. Subsequently, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1941 was applied except to the areas where New Delhi House Rent Control Order of 1939 was in force. Then, the Delhi Rent Control Ordinance no. 25 of 1944 was issued. In 1947, Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was enacted, and this was to be in force only for two years but it was extended for six years. It was by this Act in 1947 that, for the first time, restriction on eviction of tenants from commercial premises was included and since then the same has continued. In 1947, when Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was enacted, the situation in the Country was un-precedented. The country was being partitioned. The events of that time are unimaginable today. Due to partition of the country there was a large influx of refugees who migrated to Delhi, being the capital. To provide respite to them, and to provide a sense of security in respect of premises taken by them on rent for their residence as well as for their business that the 1947 Act was made. The extra-ordinary and compellingcircumstances, led to the enactment of the Rent Control Laws for Delhi. The aim of the Laws was to restrict the rights of landlords from seeking eviction of tenants and increasing rents, arbitrarily and without any reason. While, eviction could be sought from residential premises for bonafide needs, there was no such provision for seeking eviction from commercial premises, the reason being that livelihood had to be protected at all costs to ensure and encourage rehabilitation of refugees who had settled in Delhi after partition. The Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947 was replaced by the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which was repealed by the Delhi Rent Control Act in the year 1959 as noted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in H.C. Sharma v/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. 1, as the reason for rejecting the challenge to the Constitutional vires of the Delhi Rent Control Act provisions discriminating between residential and commercial premises. Between the period 1960 to 1988, there were some amendments to the Delhi Rent Control Act. From then, nothing much has changed in the Delhi Rent Control Act except by judicial initiative undertaken by Courts, considering the changes brought by passage of time. What happens on the Delhi Rent Control Act being applicable? An owner/ landlord of a premises can give it on rent to a tenant under an agreement on mutually agreed terms. The mutuality ends here. It is only till here, that there is parity and equality. Once, the premises is let out on rent, the landlord loses control. When the tenancy to which the Delhi Rent Control Act applies is terminated by the landlord, a special right in favour of the tenant becomes operative. On termination, the tenant gets protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act and becomes a statutory tenant as provided under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. There is a bar, an embargo, on eviction of the tenant from the premises unless the stringent conditions for eviction, most of them contained in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, are first satisfied by the landlord who wants to evict a tenant. The Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable to all premises in Delhi, except those which are specifically excluded under Section 3 thereof. The threshold of monthly rent exceeding Rs.3,500/- for the Delhi Rent Control Act to stop applying, though seems attractive, is saddled with the limitation that the rent cannot increase by more than 10% on the last paid rent, and only once in a period of three years. One interesting aspect is the difference or, if correctly stated, discrimination between residential and non-residential use of premises, on matters concerning eviction. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of “premises” under Section 2(i) includes both residential and commercial premises. Section 3 (c), which is a section of exclusion also does not create any distinction between residential or non-residential use of a premises, and provides that if the rent exceeds a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act will not apply. Section 14 also begins as follows “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely…”. It would appear from its reading that while it applies to “premises” as defined in Section 2(i) i.e. both residential and commercial, it actually does not. In Sections 14(1) (a) to (l), some grounds of eviction such as those contained in Sub-section (d), (e), (h), (hh) and (i) qualify the same as applying in respect of residential premises alone and not for commercial premises, while the others i.e. those contained in Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (j), (k) and (l) appear as applying to both residential and commercial premises. There is thus, a discrimination and a class within a class. The interpretation of the limited grounds available for eviction of tenants under Sections 14 to 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act including the constitutional validity of the same have been subject matter of several litigations which have often landed up at the doors of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. In the Delhi Rent Control Act, the definition of a tenant in respect of a “premises” is provided in Section 2(l). The Explanations contained in the said section, restrict the tenancy rights in favour of legal heirs of a deceased tenant. The restrictions were interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Devi Anand v/s. Union of India 2 to be applicable only to a tenant of a residential premises, and not for a tenant of a commercial premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its Judgment in the case of Gian Devi Anand considered the issue whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant in respect of commercial premises are entitled to the same protection against eviction, as the deceased tenant or not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that (a) the limitations contained in Section 2(l) (iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied only for residential premises and not to commercial premises, and (b) the Delhi Rent Control Act had treated commercial properties differently from residential properties, by referring to Sections 14(1) (d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded by presuming that the deceased tenant and the legal heirs of such deceased tenant either are, or that they will carry on the same business, or are compelled to carry on the same business for their survival and livelihood. The said Judgment was rendered in the context that the same business is and will be the source of income for the legal heirs of the deceased tenant as well, as if they were and continue to be dependent on the same for their survival during the life time of the deceased tenant, as also after his death. The business in contemplation was probably a “family business” which was the livelihood of the entire family and on which the entire family was dependent for survival. Therefore, it was held that commercial tenancy must be protected. The Hon’ble Court did not consider a scenario where the legal heirs were not in the same business or were engaged in some other commercial activity separate from the deceased tenant. Notably, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed that the legislature should consider that the ground for eviction of statutory tenant available under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, for bonafide need of landlord to be applied at parity for both residential and commercial premises, even though the Delhi Rent Control Act specified that this ground is available only for residential premises. Prior to this, in 1972, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in H.C. Sharma’s case had held that there was a clear object behind the classification of the premises into “residential” and “non-residential”, and that there was a nexus between the basis of such classification and the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held that the classification/ discrimination did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it was created in view of the partition of the Country to provide availability of commercial space for rehabilitation of persons migrating to New Delhi in 1947 when there was a large influx of refugees. Twenty-five years after this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra3 in 1997, while considering the reasonableness of the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, held that “a statute which when enacted was justified may, with the passage of time, become arbitrary and unreasonable”, and that what may have been reasonable in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s can no longer be regarded as reasonable and the continuance of such a law itself became arbitrary. In 2008, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its decision in the case of Satyawati Sharma v/s. Union of India 4, made a drastic change of approach. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the past 50 years much water has flown down the Ganges. It was noted that in the early 1950’s till 1990’s the Courts leaned heavily in favour of tenants. The reason being that they wanted to achieve the aim with which the rent control act was enacted. However, the said purpose had been long achieved. Those who had came from west Pakistan as refugees and even their next generations have settled down in different parts of the country. Many of them have also held high posts and have done well. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reasons which existed earlier no longer existed, and therefore, Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is discriminatory and it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it is made applicable only to residential premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, struck down the said discrimination in the Delhi Rent Control Act and declared that the ground of bonafide need of the landlord available for seeking eviction of a tenant will apply to both residential as well as to commercial premises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while noting that Section 14(1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, will have a bearing on the decision, did not render any findings in respect of the same, as the primary question which arose in that case was in relation to Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This Judgment in the case of Satyawati Sharma has been followed and has stood the test of time. The Courts have given purposeful interpretation to say that bonafide need of a landlord is not to be confined by giving it a pedantic approach and limiting it to needs which are show to be pressing or compelling. Rather, it is the landlord who is the true judge of his need, as long as it is a bonafide need. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment in the case of Saradamani Kandappan v/s. S. Rajalakshmi 5 again held that laws which may be reasonable and valid when made can become unreasonable and arbitrary with passage of time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its decision in the case of Anuj Garg v/s. Hotel Association of India 6 again held that a legislation which may have been upheld as valid, keeping in mind the circumstances existing at the time when it was so held, can be declared as invalid with change of times. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its Judgment in the case of Shobha Agarwal & Ors. v/s. Union of India 7 rejected the challenge to various provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In respect of Section 14(1)(d), it was held that the period of 06 months of absence is justified. There is no discussion in the reported judgment as to whether or not the said section is discriminatory on the ground that it does not apply to commercial premises also. Section 14(1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has not been in occupation of the residence for a period of six months preceding the petition. Section 14(1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has been allotted or has acquired a vacant residence. Section 14(1) (hh) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides the Landlord a right to seek eviction of the tenant if the tenant has built a residence and 10 years have elapsed. Keeping in view the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satyawati Sharma, what, if any, can be the reason for this distinction to say that even if the tenant has not been using the commercial space, or has acquired / purchased another separate commercial space, yet he cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises, even though these are grounds under the Delhi Rent Control Act for seeking eviction of a statutory tenant from a residential premises. In the current time, is this not discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India? What was the aim of Delhi Rent Control Act? Was it the aim of the legislature, that it should continue ad infinitum, and that a commercial property once given on rent to a tenant and covered under the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act, would in perpetuity be vested with the tenant, even if the tenant himself does not use it, or the tenant has acquired a place of his own, or the tenancy will continue even after the death of the tenant even if legal heirs of the tenant are or were not working with, or in the same business for which the tenant was using the commercial premises given on rent? The rent control legislations of several other states do not create any distinction between residential and commercial premises/ tenancies in respect of non-use of the premises as a ground for eviction of tenant. In this regard, Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 8 , Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 9, Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 10, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 11, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 12, Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 13, Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 14 and Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 15 provide non-use of the premises as a ground for eviction in cases of both, residential and commercial tenancies/ premises. This classification between residential and commercial premises/ tenancies is unreasonable, unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Is the Delhi Rent Control Act, required in the current times? Recently, many states in the country, including Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir have enacted new tenancy laws, which are model laws and are progressive, inasmuch as they seek to create an equilibrium, and they do not create any special status in favour of the landlord, or of the tenant but they have been enacted with the intention to ensure that the terms of tenancy mutually agreed, are respected and are enforceable with the sanction of Law. Should Delhi also follow? The author is an advocate practicing in Delhi 1 ILR (1973) I Delhi 90 2 1985(2) SCC 683 3 (1998) 2 SCC 1 4 2008(5) SCC 287 5 (2011) 12 SCC 18 6 (2008) 3 SCC 1 7 (2019) 256 DLT 210(DB) 8 Section 14(1)(v), Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 9 Section 10(2)(v), Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 10 Section 13(2)(v), Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. 11 Section 13(2)(v), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. 12 Section 9(k), Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. 13 Section 11(4)(v)¸Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 14 Section 27(2)(d), Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. 15 Section 16(1)(n), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
function loadGtagEvents(isGoogleCampaignActive) {
if (!isGoogleCampaignActive) {
return;
}
var id = document.getElementById('toi-plus-google-campaign');
if (id) {
return;
}
(function(f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {
t = b.createElement(e);
t.async = !0;
t.defer = !0;
t.src = v;
t.id = 'toi-plus-google-campaign';
s = b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t, s);
})(f, b, e, 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=AW-877820074', n, t, s);
};
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
Eight months after it was taken up for restoration, the Capital’s oldest church, St James’ in North Delhi’s Kashmere Gate, has been restored and was rededicated Sunday.
Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena, who presided over the ceremony during which Bishop of Delhi, Reverend Dr Paul Swarup, and Presbyter of the church, Reverend Pratik Pillai were also present, commended the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for restoring the 187-year-old church, built in 1836, in record time.
Restoration and renovation work at the church, also known as Skinner’s Church after Colonel James Skinner who got it constructed, was taken up by DDA with support from INTACH in November 2022.
“Humbled to have rededicated the Historic St James Church in the Capital. This Iconic & Grand house of faith…has stood witness to the 1st war of independence, as indeed our entire struggle against colonialism,” Saxena posted on X, formerly Twitter, following the event.
“I commend DDA officials and the curators, who, with utmost diligence, restored this heritage in a record time, while keeping the originality of the structure intact…St James’ Church is known to be the church of the British Viceroy of India in Delhi,” he added.
The church, apart from serving its parishioners, will also serve as a major attraction for tourists visiting nearby monuments like Red Fort, Jama Masjid, and the popular Chandni Chowk among others during the G-20 Summit, LG House officials said.
Saxena, while inspecting the renovation work of the church on different occasions, had instructed the officials to strictly ensure that the originality of the heritage structure was retained.
St James’ Church, a part of the Church of North India, Diocese of Delhi, is located near several historical monuments in the Old Delhi area frequented by thousands of visitors every day.
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
A Delhi Court Wednesday reserved its order on former Congress minister Jagdish Tytler’s anticipatory bail plea in a case related to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots involving arson in a North Delhi gurdwara.
Medical conditions, mental health issues and old age were cited by Tytler’s counsel as grounds to seek anticipatory bail. The matter will now be heard on August 4.
In May, the CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet against Tytler based on statements of new witnesses who claimed they saw him allegedly instigating the mob which had assembled at Azad Market’s Pul Bangash Gurdwara on November 1, 1984, following which it was burnt down and three persons were killed. The chargesheet alleged that Tytler “incited, instigated and provoked” the mob, after which he had moved an anticipatory bail plea at Rouse Avenue Court on August 1.
Public Prosecutor Amit Jindal told The Indian Express that statements of two new witnesses, who had never spoken regarding the case earlier, were recorded during the investigation.
Tytler’s counsel, Manu Sharma, argued that closure reports filed by the CBI in 2009 and 2014 proved he was innocent and he was at Teen Murti Bhavan when gurdwara was set ablaze, on the basis of a DVD which the agency relied on while filing a closure report. “In 2009, the CBI recommended no action… In 2014, again the court recommended no action against Tytler. But 11 months before a general election… the CBI decides… there is a case…,” said Sharma.
The summoning orders, he said, suffered from a “serious infirmity” as they were passed based on a few witnesses who showed up after decades.
HS Phoolka, the counsel for the complainant, argued that the grant of bail was not necessary since accused had committed offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or for more than 7 years. He argued that the gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused threatening witnesses needed to be looked at. “It is not a case of three murders, it is a case of genocide…” he said. “Threats took place for a closure report. Imagine what would happen for a chargesheet,” he said.
Sharma said the delay in the witnesses coming forward tilted the case in favour of the accused. “… The new witnesses have to explain why they didn’t come forward earlier during trial,” he said.
“Witnesses react differently. Just because there is a delay in their statements doesn’t mean they’re lying,” Jindal countered.
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
Parts of Delhi recorded heavy rainfall early on Wednesday with more rain expected on Thursday.
The India Meteorological Department’s (IMD) weather observatory at Mayur Vihar recorded the highest amount of rainfall on Wednesday morning – 110.5 mm. Other parts of the city recorded what the IMD categorises as moderate rainfall – the Safdarjung weather station, the city’s base observatory, recorded 37.1 mm, while Lodhi Road logged 35.1 mm. The weather observatory at North Delhi’s Mungeshpur recorded 53.5 mm of rainfall.
Very light rainfall continued in parts of the city till noon. Rainfall offered some respite from high humidity levels, and the maximum temperature Wednesday dropped slightly to 31.3 degrees Celsius, four notches below normal. The IMD forecast indicates that moderate rainfall and thundershowers are expected in Delhi on Thursday as well. A ‘yellow’ alert has been issued, which is a warning to ‘be aware’. The alert points to the likelihood of minor traffic disruptions and waterlogging in low-lying areas. Light to moderate rainfall is also expected on Friday, and light rain is on the forecast for the weekend. So far this month, the Safdarjung weather station has recorded 368.6 mm of rainfall, which is more than the normal or long-period average of 209.7 mm for the entire month. The city has seen 16 rainy days so far this July.
A western disturbance has been affecting northwest India. Additionally, the monsoon trough, a feature of the southwest monsoon, is active and lies south of its normal position, but is likely to shift northwards in the next two to three days, according to an IMD bulletin issued on Wednesday. After remaining a little below the ‘danger’ level on Tuesday night and early on Wednesday morning, the water level of the Yamuna at the Old Railway Bridge in Delhi returned to a figure above the ‘danger’ mark on Wednesday evening. The level at 8 pm was 205.5 m, which is a little above the ‘danger’ mark of 205.33 m. It is set to rise further to 205.73 m by 10 pm on Wednesday, going by the Central Water Commission (CWC) forecast.
It is likely to remain above the ‘danger’ mark on Thursday and Friday, according to the CWC’s flood situation report and advisory issued on Wednesday.v
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
A three-year-old boy, who had stepped outside his home to play, drowned in the waterlogged basement of a building in North Delhi’s Kirari Saturday, police said. The boy lived with his family at their rented accommodation on the ground floor of the same building, they added.
Residents of the locality said the basement, used for storage purposes, had been waterlogged for many days. Police suspect the boy went down the staircase, slipped and fell into the basement where he drowned in the water.
Police said they received a call about the incident at 10.24 pm Saturday. The boy, Arif Ali, was taken to a hospital where doctors declared him dead on arrival.
GS Sidhu, DCP (Rohini), said, “We received information at Prem Nagar police station from the SGM hospital regarding the death of a boy. The boy lived in Prem Nagar, Kirari. Local police reached the hospital where the parents stated that there was waterlogging in the basement. Necessary legal action is being taken in the matter.”
The boy’s father, Ashraf Ali, is a rickshaw puller and has five other children.
He said, “On Saturday, I was outside for some work while his mother was at home. Within 10-15 minutes, we realised Arif was missing. We searched for him everywhere… I then found his body in the basement.”
The family alleged that the basement has been flooded with water and sewage for weeks, adding that none of the authorities has taken any action.
“We called the councillor and other MCD officials several times. They have still not done anything to fix the waterlogging issue. I just want them to act now. I have lost my son. I don’t want anything like this to happen to someone else…,” said the father.
Locals in Kirari alleged the entire colony has been facing waterlogging problems for weeks after the heavy rain in the city, adding that there is inadequate drainage in the area. “Neither the local MLA nor the councillor has come to meet the family or us. How can we live here when our houses are all filled with water?” said Rajdev, a local.
Kirari MLA, AAP’s Rituraj Govind, said, “I am very sad to hear this news. We found that three-four houses were constructed in the middle of a water body… including the house where the incident took place… on encroached land… This is a natural body, called Machli ka talab… Rescue operations take place at settlements located around the river fronts and banks. Kirari is very far from Yamuna. It will get flooded after the entire city gets submerged. The natural water body was dry but this time, with heavy and unprecedented rain, water filled the houses. Hence, the water entered the houses…”
“We are planning to shift the families to a rescue centre. We will also provide compensation to the boy’s family,” he added.
The BJP, meanwhile, hit out at the AAP. In a statement, Delhi BJP president Virendra Sachdeva alleged, “The criminal negligence of the Delhi government is taking the lives of children in Kirari. We demand immediate compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the family from the Arvind Kejriwal government. Every year, during monsoon, waterlogging happens in Kirari and the Delhi government has never made any effort to ensure laying of proper sewer lines and sanitation in the year. In most parts of Kirari, water enters houses and they’re submerged in 3-4 feet of water…”
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
The water level in the Yamuna crossed the ‘danger’ mark once again on Friday, reaching a level of 205.34 m at the Old Railway Bridge in Delhi. This has prompted instructions from the Delhi government to ensure the safety of residents of low-lying areas — many of whom had just returned home.
Meanwhile, rainfall is predicted in the capital over the coming week.
Recorded slightly above the danger mark of 205.33 m at 6 pm, the Central Water Commission (CWC) forecast indicated it was likely to rise further to around 205.45 m by 11 pm.
A senior official of the CWC said that it was, however, likely to stabilise thereafter. “There is a slight increase. While it is likely to rise a little more by midnight, a further increase is not expected after that,” the official said.
The official attributed the rise in levels to both rainfall that may have occurred upstream, as well water from the floodplains returning to the river.
After having remained above the danger mark for a little more than a week, the water level had fallen below the danger mark on Tuesday but rose past the ‘danger’ level again on Wednesday, before falling below this mark once more on Thursday morning.
Some parts of the floodplains in Delhi remain inundated, with the water not having receded entirely yet after levels in the river rose last week, following heavy rainfall in the catchment areas of the Yamuna.
Heavy rainfall was recorded in parts of Himachal Pradesh between 8.30 am on Thursday and 8.30 am on Friday, along with thunderstorms in parts of Northwest India on Friday, including areas in Haryana, Chandigarh, Western Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, according to the India Meteorological Department (IMD).
A single weather observatory in Delhi, the one in North Delhi’s Mungeshpur, recorded 21.5 mm of rainfall on Friday. Light rainfall is expected over the weekend, going by the IMD forecast.
The forecast also indicates that light to moderate rainfall is likely on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week. The rainfall activity over northwest India is likely to increase around July 25 with the western end of the monsoon trough shifting northwards, according to the IMD.
Other parts of northwest India, including Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, North Haryana and Chandigarh could see rainfall on Friday as well. Rainfall is also expected to continue over Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh till July 25.
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
Three out of 11 districts in the city have seen the headcount ratio — proportion of population that lives below the poverty threshold — of the multi-dimensionally poor increase even as the Capital has witnessed an improvement in multidimensional poverty between 2015-16 and 2019-2021.
According to the 2023 Multidimensional Poverty Index prepared by the NITI Aayog, North Delhi, West Delhi and South West Delhi have seen an increase in the headcount ratio of the multi-dimensionally poor.
Two more districts — New Delhi and Central Delhi — have seen a marginal increase.
North East Delhi, which previously saw the multidimensional poverty rate of 7.35%, has seen a marked improvement as has North West Delhi. The city, overall, had one of the lowest headcount ratios in the country and witnessed an improvement of one percentage point — from 4.44% to 3.43% in five years.
The index is calculated using 12 indicators, gathered from the NFHS reports from 2015-16 and 2019-21 (one-year gap due to Covid). These indicators include nutrition, child and adolescent mortality, years of schooling, school attendance, cooking fuel, sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing, assets and bank account, and are grouped under three heads — health, education and standard of living.
Former Chief Statistician Pronab Sen said one of the probable reasons for an increase in poverty in a few districts could be migration. “When migrants first enter a state, they usually have nowhere to go… they settle in slums, which ends up increasing the multi-dimensional poverty. This could be one of the reasons.”
For more information call us at 9891563359.
We are a group of best insurance advisors in Delhi. We are experts in LIC and have received number of awards.
If you are near Delhi or Rohini or Pitampura Contact Us Here
