Khan Market's Fire NOC Dispute: How The Delhi High Court Balanced Safety And Structural Limits

Introduction

Behind Khan Market’s busy cafés and restaurants lies a less visible problem: many of the market’s older buildings were never designed to meet modern fire-safety standards. Several restaurants operate from the first and second floors, which are reached through narrow staircases and, in some cases, only one practical entry and exit route. This structural limitation became a legal issue when the New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) linked the renewal of restaurant permissions to obtaining a fire no-objection certificate (“Fire NOC”).

The dispute reached the Delhi High Court through a batch of petitions decided on 10 April 2026.¹ What appeared to be a licensing dispute raised a broader question: how should modern safety rules apply to an old commercial market where major structural changes may not be practical? The Hon’ble High Court did not resolve every technical issue. Instead, it adopted a limited and conditional arrangement based on occupancy control, continuing fire-safety measures and supervision by the authorities.

From Licence Renewal to a Fire-Safety Dispute

The restaurants said that they had operated with the necessary permissions for years. Around 2020–21, NDMC stopped renewing the mandatory health trade licences because the Delhi Fire Service (“DFS”) had not issued Fire NOCs. The restaurants argued that their establishments did not require such certificates and that the refusal to renew their licences was arbitrary.

DFS took a different view. It relied on the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010²; the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016³ and the National Building Code of India, 2016⁴. According to DFS, the floor area of the units indicated that they could accommodate more than 50 persons and therefore fell within the category of “assembly buildings”. The restaurants disputed that calculation and maintained that only the dining area, rather than the entire premises, should be used to assess capacity.

The 50-Person Threshold and the Question the Court Left Open

The Unified Building Bye-Laws describe an assembly building “as a building, or part of a building, where not less than 50 people gather for recreational, social, religious, civic, travel or similar purposes”⁵. Restaurants are expressly included in that category. This threshold was therefore central to the arguments made by both sides.

However, the Hon’ble High Court did not finally decide whether the petitioners’ premises were assembly buildings. During the proceedings, NDMC issued a notification dated 23 February 2026 stating that an existing establishment with a valid FSSAI or GST registration, as applicable, would no longer require a separate NDMC health trade licence. The notification also made it clear that businesses would still have to obtain other regulatory clearances and comply with safety requirements⁶.

Since the petitions had originally challenged the refusal of health licences for want of a Fire NOC, the Hon’ble High Court held that the assembly-building question had become academic. This is an important limit on the judgment: it did not rule that every restaurant with 50 or fewer guests automatically falls outside the Fire NOC regime.

A Practical Solution, not a General Exemption

The Hon’ble High Court noted Khan Market’s historic character and the structural limitations of the restaurant spaces located on the first and second floors. It recorded that the first- and second-floor restaurants had only one feasible entry and exit point and that this feature had existed for a long time. The petitioners also undertook not to host more than 50 guests at any given time.

At the same time, the Hon’ble High Court stressed that public safety takes priority over commercial interests. The restaurants were given relief only because they accepted continuing obligations intended to reduce fire risk and allow the authorities to monitor compliance. The principal safeguards include:

• Occupancy control: Each restaurant must maintain a maximum occupancy of 50 persons and may be required to use technology that allows the authorities to verify the number of guests;
• Fire and equipment safety: Automatic detection and alarm systems, firefighting equipment, electrical-safety measures and fuel-safety protocols must be installed, maintained and regularly checked;
• Safe access and trained staff: Entrances, exits, staircases and access routes must remain clear, and staff must receive emergency-response and evacuation training;
• Inspection and correction: Restaurants must cooperate with DFS, NDMC and other competent authorities and promptly correct deficiencies identified during inspections; and
• Continuing compliance: Restaurants must follow future policies and fire-safety rules and submit a self-attested fire-safety audit to DFS every quarter.

The Hon’ble High Court also provided a procedural safeguard. If an authority proposes action against a petitioner solely because it lacks a Fire NOC, that action cannot take effect without 30 days’ prior notice. The restaurant may then pursue the remedies available under law. This notice period protects against sudden closure on that ground; it does not excuse a breach of the safety conditions or any other applicable rule.

Why the Decision Matters Beyond Khan Market

The judgment offers a practical example of how authorities and businesses may deal with safety compliance in an older commercial area. It does not remove the fire-safety framework. Instead, it combines a monitored occupancy limit with equipment requirements, inspections, staff training and periodic audits.

The judgement may be relevant to similar disputes involving old buildings, but it is not an automatic precedent for every restaurant or heritage property. Any business seeking comparable relief would still need to establish its own structural constraints, permissions, actual occupancy and safety arrangements. Most importantly, the judgment does not settle the wider legal test for deciding when a restaurant becomes an assembly building.

Conclusion

A heritage address cannot become a reason to ignore fire safety, but modern rules also cannot always be applied as though every building were newly constructed. The Khan Market case sits in that middle ground. The restaurants received case-specific relief because they accepted strict limits, monitoring and continuing safety duties not because a Fire NOC or fire compliance became optional.

For businesses operating from older properties, the takeaway is simple: structural difficulty may explain why a standard requirement is hard to meet, but meaningful relief depends on credible safeguards, transparent cooperation and consistent compliance. In Khan Market, keeping the doors open came with an equally clear obligation to keep people safe.

Our Coverage on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7491367932657053696

Footnotes

^{1 Perch A Unit of Sunrise F and B Restaurant Pvt Ltd v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors., W.P.(C) 5706/2021, available at https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/59610042026CW57062021_134200.pdf.}

^{2  Available at https://upload.indiacode.nic.in/showfile?actid=AC_DL_64_806_00001_00001_1547013016775&type=rule&filename=dfs_rules_2010.pdf}

^{3 Available at https://dda.gov.in/sites/default/files/public-notice/COMPENDIUM_OF_UBBL_201605082020_0.pdf}

^{4  Available at https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s35f4f78111ff6538d1f5ea498032c4745/uploads/2025/03/202503261284340577.pdf}

^{5 Section 1.4.75 (d), available at – https://dda.gov.in/sites/default/files/public-notice/COMPENDIUM_OF_UBBL_201605082020_0.pdf}

^{6  New Delhi Municipal Council, Notification dated 23 February 2026, as reproduced in Perch, A Unit of Sunrise F and B Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors., W.P.(C) 5706/2021 and connected matters, judgment dated 10 April 2026, para 9.}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.