Criminal Liability of Commercial Property Owners Under BNS: Lessons from the Malviya Nagar Fire Case

Handing over a commercial property to a tenant does not end an owner's legal exposure. The June 2026 fire at a bed-and-breakfast establishment in Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, Delhi, has brought that issue into sharp focus.

The fire killed 23 people. The investigation that followed has raised hard questions about building permissions, fire-safety arrangements, how the premises were actually being run, and — critically for property owners — who among the owner, manager and staff can be held criminally responsible for what happened.

Delhi Police has since filed a chargesheet against the property owner, a manager-cum-accountant and a cook under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). A Delhi court has taken cognisance of that chargesheet, finding the material on record prima facie sufficient to proceed.

None of this means every landlord becomes criminally liable whenever a tenant breaks a rule. What it does raise is a sharper question: when does a commercial property owner cross the line from contractual landlord to criminally liable party when unsafe or unauthorised activity on the premises leads to death or serious injury?

What Happened in the Malviya Nagar Fire

The fire broke out on June 3, 2026, at a five-storey bed-and-breakfast in Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar. Twenty-three people died, including a 16-year-old girl and several foreign nationals.

Police investigators, in findings reported in September 2026, allege that the property was being run as a 26-room establishment despite holding a bed-and-breakfast permission for only six rooms. An earlier application for a full hotel licence had reportedly been rejected because the building had just one entry and exit point and no fire exit.

The investigation further alleges that an alternative exit was blocked off during construction, and that the building's layout, combined with combustible materials inside, made evacuation far harder once the fire took hold.

According to police, the fire started in the kitchen after a cook left an oil fryer running while preparing tea. Investigators have also looked into how long it took for the first emergency call to go out. Final forensic findings were still pending when the chargesheet was filed.

These remain allegations at this stage of the prosecution. Nothing here should be read as an established finding of guilt.

Where the Case Stands Now

The matter has moved past the initial arrests and police remand covered in early reports.

In September 2026, Delhi Police filed a nearly 1,500-page chargesheet naming three accused:

• property owner Lavkesh Bajaj
• manager-cum-accountant Jay Mishra
• cook Keshav Negi

The chargesheet invokes multiple BNS provisions — Section 105, Section 326(g), Section 324(5), Sections 125(a) and 125(b), and Section 287 — and is reported to include statements from over 130 witnesses along with medical and documentary evidence.

On September 3, a Delhi court took cognisance, holding that the allegations and material on record were prima facie sufficient to proceed against all three accused. The case is now listed for arguments on charge.

Taking cognisance is not a verdict. The prosecution still has to prove the ingredients of each offence against each accused, in accordance with law, before any finding of guilt can follow.

The BNS Provisions Behind the Chargesheet

The BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) from July 1, 2024, and several of its provisions are central to this case.

Section 105 deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It separates two mental states: an intention to cause death or a likely-fatal injury, versus acting with knowledge that the conduct is likely to cause death — a distinction that matters a great deal for how each accused's role will be assessed.

Section 326(g) covers mischief by fire or explosive substance where the accused intends, or knows it is likely, that the act will destroy a building ordinarily used as a dwelling, place of worship, or for the custody of property.

The remaining sections cited in the chargesheet relate to mischief, endangering human life or personal safety, and negligent handling of fire or combustible material.

The point worth underlining for property owners: a regulatory lapse and a criminal offence are not the same thing. Missing a Fire NOC or operating without a required approval does not, by itself, amount to culpable homicide. Section 105 requires the prosecution to prove a specific act or omission, the required mental state, and a legally relevant causal connection between that conduct and the deaths that followed. The facts of each case decide whether that chain exists.

Can a Commercial Landlord Face Criminal Liability for a Tenant's Conduct?

A landlord doesn't become criminally liable simply because a tenant runs an unsafe business on their property. But a lease is not a blanket shield either.

Where the line actually falls tends to turn on questions like:

• who owned and controlled the premises
• who was responsible for obtaining specific licences or approvals
• who carried out or authorised structural changes
• who ran the day-to-day commercial operation
• whether the owner knew about an unlawful activity or safety gap
• whether the owner participated in, authorised, or knowingly allowed the conduct in question
• whether a specific statutory duty attached to the owner, occupier or operator
• whether the alleged conduct has a legally relevant connection to the death or injury

A lease can divide up contractual responsibilities between landlord and tenant, but it can't override a statute. If a criminal provision imposes a duty directly on a person, or the evidence shows that person personally participated in the relevant conduct, no contract clause changes that outcome.

Landlord, Tenant, Occupier, Operator: Why the Labels Matter

These four words get used loosely, but they're not interchangeable in law.

An owner may carry obligations tied to the structure or permitted use of the building. A tenant or operator typically controls the day-to-day business. A manager may be responsible for staff, guests and safety procedures on the ground. Which of these roles actually carries which legal duty depends on the applicable law and the specific facts of the property — not on job titles.

For a commercial property owner, the practical takeaway isn't "own everything the tenant does." It's knowing precisely which obligations stay with you and which have been lawfully assigned to the tenant or operator. That distinction matters most for hotels, guest houses, restaurants, warehouses, factories, hospitals and schools, where occupancy and fire-safety rules bear directly on people's safety.

A Lease Can Limit Risk — It Cannot Erase Criminal Liability

A well-drafted commercial lease sharpens who is responsible for what. It cannot, on its own, remove statutory or criminal exposure.

A strong lease will typically specify:

• who obtains and renews licences
• who maintains fire-safety equipment
• who is responsible for keeping statutory approvals current
• restrictions on structural alterations
• inspection and access rights
• obligations to notify the landlord of regulatory notices
• consequences for operating without mandatory approvals
• the landlord's right to terminate if things go wrong

Indemnity clauses can allocate financial risk arising from a contractual breach. What they cannot do is convert a criminal question into a purely contractual one. Reimbursing a loss and committing a criminal offence are two entirely different legal questions, and no indemnity clause bridges that gap.

Six Steps Commercial Property Owners Should Take

1. Verify approvals before the lease is signed. Establish the permitted use of the property — building-use permissions, occupancy approvals, fire-safety clearances, trade licences, and any sector-specific requirements — before operations begin, not after.

2. Write compliance responsibility into the lease explicitly. A line like "the tenant shall comply with all laws" isn't specific enough to be useful in a dispute. Name the actual obligations: fire-safety compliance, licensing, inspection rights, structural changes, occupancy limits, renewal duties.

3. Keep control over structural changes. Unauthorised construction creates risk that outlives the landlord-tenant relationship. Require written consent for alterations, and keep records of what was approved.

4. Use your inspection rights. Don't rely solely on a tenant's word that the premises remain compliant. Periodic inspections, documentary checks, or an independent fire-safety audit for higher-risk properties can catch problems early — not to micromanage the tenant's business, but to catch property-level safety issues before they escalate.

5. Track renewal dates for critical approvals. Licences and safety certificates lapse. A simple system that flags renewal dates and requires the tenant to share updated copies creates a documented compliance trail — and gives you a chance to act if something lapses.

6. Act the moment a serious violation surfaces. A written notice, a demand for corrective action, suspending operations where legally possible, terminating the lease, or getting legal advice — the right response depends on the violation, but ignoring a known safety problem because "it's the tenant's business" can create additional legal and factual complications later.

The Bigger Picture

The Malviya Nagar case isn't a warning that every regulatory slip creates criminal exposure. It's a warning about what happens when an owner is shown to have participated in, authorised, or knowingly permitted conduct that created a serious risk to human life — and then that risk materialised.

It also shows why the lease document alone doesn't answer the question. An owner can have a carefully drafted agreement putting operational duties on the tenant, but if the property has unpermitted structural changes, missing approvals, or a known safety risk left unaddressed, pointing to the lease doesn't resolve the legal question of what the owner knew and did.

Commercial property compliance is not a box ticked at signing — it's something that needs revisiting for as long as the lease runs.

Key Takeaways

• Roles matter more than titles. What each person actually did — not whether they were "the landlord" or "the tenant" — decides criminal liability.
• A lease allocates contract risk, not criminal risk. The two are separate legal questions, and a contract cannot answer the second.
• Regulatory violations are not trivial. Building, occupancy and fire-safety breaches can carry serious consequences once they create real risk to occupants.
• Document everything — approvals, inspections, notices, renewals, and communications about safety.
• Act on known violations immediately. Delay or inaction on a known risk tends to compound both the legal and factual problems later.
• An indemnity clause is not criminal immunity. It shifts financial risk under contract — nothing more.

Conclusion

Malviya Nagar is a reminder that commercial property carries legal risk well beyond rent and possession disputes. Where a property is used for a public-facing business, owners need to understand the regulatory framework governing it and document their role in meeting that framework — treating fire safety, permitted use, structural compliance and licence renewals as ongoing obligations rather than paperwork from move-in day.

At the same time, criminal liability isn't automatic just because a regulation was breached. The question that actually decides a case is whether the evidence proves the legal ingredients of the specific offence against the specific person. As the Malviya Nagar proceedings continue, that is the standard commercial property owners should hold their own compliance to as well: understand your statutory duties, document what you do about them, and act without delay when a serious risk comes to light.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal position in any particular matter depends on the applicable law, the facts of the case and the evidence available.