W.P.(C) 8755/2026 $~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8755/2026 with CM APPL. 41109/2026 KAPIL GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rachit Gupta, Mr. Vinit Tyagi, Mr. Harsh Sharma and Mr. Asif, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocate for R- 2. Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava, Ms. Rishika Jain and Mr. Sharan Mehta, Advocates for R-3 and R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 11:04:17 W.P.(C) 8755/2026 2. It is stated that the petitioner’s grandfather was inducted as a tenant in respect of two rooms, one kitchen and one veranda at the first floor in the property bearing no. 3997-3400, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi – 110006 (hereinafter ‘subject premises’). Since then, the petitioner and his family were in occupation of the subject premises. Subsequently, eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 2003, were initiated against the petitioner’s father in 2009. 3. It is stated that in 2016, the subject premises was notified in the list of heritage buildings. In the year 2021, the subject premises was demolished. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that an unauthorized construction without obtaining sanction plan has been raised on the subject property by the private respondents no.3 and 4 and that there has also been encroachment on the pavement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction carried out is in violation of the Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016. 5. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD submits that the construction has been carried out pursuant to a sanction plan. 6. A perusal of the writ petition would show that the petitioner and/or his father and grandfather were erstwhile tenants in the subject premises. As per the memo of parties, the current address of the petitioner given is that of Ashok Vihar. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 11:04:17 W.P.(C) 8755/2026 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has shifted out of the said property as far back as 2005. Therefore, he would not have any interest in the subject property as on date. 8. It is a settled position of law that only a person who is an immediate neighbour and is affected by the unauthorised construction can file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking demolition. Reference in this regard is made to the judgement passed by this Court in Tarun Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi’, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10623, wherein it was observed that a writ petition filed by a person who is not directly affected and fails to establish locus standi, is not maintainable. The relevant observations from the aforesaid judgement are set our below: “18. This Court is of the opinion that if such pleas are entertained by this Court, it would open the gates for any person to file a writ petition with respect to any property situated in any part of the city, merely on the ground that construction in such property causes traffic jams and congestions in the area, thereby, affecting rights of such persons. Clearly, the intent of the law is not to confer such free hand to persons to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on grounds as raised in the present petition, particularly, when the petitioner is neither living in the vicinity of the property in question, nor can be said to be affected directly by the existence of such property….” 9. In light of the aforesaid, in my considered view, the petitioner does not have the locus to maintain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. 11. Pending application stands disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 6, 2026/Vivek/- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 11:04:17