A five-storey paying guest accommodation in Delhi’s Satya Niketan, housing students, collapsed on Sunday afternoon, killing seven people and injuring several others. The incident has once again put the spotlight on the safety of Delhi’s growing network of PGs and private hostels.
According to the MCD’s post-collapse assessment, there was no sanctioned building plan, the basement construction was unauthorised, and the property did not have a Fire NOC.
The building had several red flags. This raises a basic question: who should have flagged the danger, the owner or the civic authorities? The MCD has recently stepped up safety checks of another part of the student ecosystem, coaching centres. However, there was an older direct precedent for PG inspections.
Because the civic body had already conducted its annual pre-monsoon building survey, the question becomes more pertinent. The owner of the building was arrested 25 hours later. The 2026 survey covered a target of 32.6 lakh properties, of which 29.9 lakh had been inspected by July 2, 2026. The exercise identified 27 dangerous buildings and 125 requiring repairs or retrofitting, putting 152 properties under structural concern. The Satya Niketan building, however, was not among the 27 classified as dangerous. In June, it said it would survey 923 coaching centres across 12 zones using an 18-point safety checklist covering building plans, occupancy certificates, Fire NOCs, basement use, staircases and exits, among other parameters. The enforcement drive resulted in 36 coaching-centre properties being sealed and nine receiving show-cause notices in June. Following a fire at a women’s PG in Mukherjee Nagar in 2023, the MCD conducted a four-day door-to-door survey and identified 104 PG units for building-bylaw violations. The civic body had specifically focused on PGs in buildings above 9 metres and housing more than 20 people, where a Fire NOC was required.
There was no sanctioned building plan, the basement construction was unauthorised, and the property did not have a Fire NOC, according to the MCD’s post-collapse assessment. Officials also said the fifth floor was not permitted under applicable FAR rules. Residents said they had noticed cracks, dampness and water accumulation, while repair work had reportedly been underway for about a week. The MCD’s post-collapse assessment said there was no record of booking or sealing against the property and no complaint regarding the work.
