An investigation into the collapse of a five-storey building in south-west Delhi's Satya Niketan has identified two critical factors that contributed to the structural failure. The 50-year-old building, which collapsed on Sunday, was weakened by water accumulation in the basement and the removal of a ground-floor wall. The incident resulted in the deaths of seven people, including five students.

According to officials, renovation work had been ongoing for over a week before the collapse. The basement, which had been used to store three truckloads of construction debris, became a source of instability. The owners decided to eliminate the basement space and level it with the ground floor, a process that added significant weight to the structure. At the same time, a wall on the ground floor was removed to create additional space for a shop. These modifications, combined with the waterlogged basement, are believed to have compromised the building's integrity.

Labour contractor Sanoj Kumar, who has been arrested, told police he was assigned the renovation work by Mahesh Gupta, the son of one of the building's owners, Hariram Gupta. Kumar claimed he was being paid Rs 2,800 per day. The First Information Report (FIR) in the case states that Hariram Gupta and his brother had added extra floors to the building despite knowing it was structurally weak. The building was later managed by Sudhanshu Gupta, who marketed it as 'Hostel Daze' PG. Rooms were rented out to students due to the building's proximity to Delhi University.

On Wednesday, the Patiala House Court granted the police two days' custody of Mahesh Gupta, Sanoj Kumar, and Sudhanshu Gupta. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and further details on the structural assessment and regulatory oversight are yet to be disclosed.

The incident has raised questions about the safety standards and oversight in urban construction. While the investigation highlights the role of structural modifications and poor maintenance, it does not provide a comprehensive assessment of the building's original condition or the extent of prior inspections. The lack of a clear timeline for the building's construction and subsequent alterations remains a gap in the available information.

The collapse has sparked calls for stricter enforcement of building codes and more rigorous inspections, particularly for older structures. However, the evidence does not specify whether the building was registered with the appropriate authorities or if any prior warnings were issued. The absence of a detailed structural report or expert analysis limits the understanding of how the building's weaknesses were exacerbated by the recent renovations.

As the legal and technical investigations continue, the focus remains on the immediate causes of the collapse and the accountability of those involved. The deaths of the students have intensified the public demand for transparency and reform in urban development practices. Further details on the building's history, the role of local authorities, and the long-term implications for similar structures in Delhi are still pending.