Delhi building collapse: Owner knew base was weak, built 4 additional floors, say cops
A court has sent Hariram and Urmila to 14 days’ judicial custody.

NEW DELHI: Delhi Police Tuesday apprehended the labour contractor who was supervising ongoing construction at Satya Niketan student hostel which collapsed Sunday, killing seven people. Sanoj was apprehended from Kasganj, UP, and was brought to Delhi.The FIR registered in the case states that building owner Hariram Gupta and his brother, to earn more rental income, constructed four additional floors on top of the old structure despite being aware that the foundation was not capable of bearing the weight.During interrogation, Mahesh Gupta, who was managing the accommodation on behalf of his parents Hariram and Urmila, said the building was given to PG operator ‘Hostel Daze’ on lease in Aug 2025. Two shops on the ground floor were being merged and expanded into one, police confirmed.Sources said a load-bearing wall was allegedly removed during the construction, which may have compromised the stability of the building, eventually leading to the collapse. “Mahesh was questioned about the construction and documents related to its possession and ownership,” a police source said.Police sources also said soil samples from the site were collected for forensic examination to determine whether the soil or foundation showed signs of disturbance, excavation, water seepage or weakening.

Unaware of legalities in PG agreement, says owner

Gupta has claimed that the basement was being repaired as water was getting accumulated during rains for the past 8-10 days. They found out about the building collapse from locals and fled to Gupta’s in-laws’ house in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan,” a senior police officer said.A court has sent Hariram and Urmila to 14 days’ judicial custody, while Gupta is on police remand for two days.Gupta has also been confronted with an alleged rent agreement draft that surfaced Monday and seemed to be aimed at absolving the owners in case of a mishap. It mentioned that the PG would not be liable for compensation if a tenant suffered personal injury or loss due to circumstances described as “beyond the control” of the establishment. Gupta said he was unaware of the legalities mentioned in the agreement.



Source link

By sushil

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *