LPA 774/2026 $~68 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010455782026 + LPA 774/2026 KAPIL GUPTA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rachit Gupta with Mr. Vinit Tyagi, Mr. Saurabh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Harsh Sharma and Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, ASC with Mr. Pulkit Garg, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, SPC for R2/SHO Delhi Police. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. Nos. 65654/2026 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. CM APPL. Nos. 65655/2026 & 65657/2026 (Condonations of Delay) 3. These Applications have been filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing and 21 days in re-filing the present Appeal, respectively. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31 Signature Not Verified LPA 774/2026 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 15 days in filing as well as 21 days in re-filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Accordingly, the Applications stand disposed of. LPA 774/2026, CM APPL. 65656/2026 6. The present intra court Appeal assails the order dated 06.07.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed in W.P.(C) 8755/2026 (“Writ Petition”) filed by the Appellant. 7. The Appellant’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 (“Subject Premises”) in 1958. Upon the demise of the Appellant’s grandfather, the tenancy devolved upon the Appellant’s father in 2003. The Appellant’s father thereafter shifted out of the Subject Premises in 2005 to Ashok Vihar. 8. In 2009, Smt. Maya Devi instituted Eviction Petition No. E/566/14/09, titled ‘Maya Devi v. Pardeep Gupta’ (“Eviction Proceedings”), under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the Appellant’s father in respect of the Subject Premises, on the ground that she had purchased the Subject Premises. Vide order dated 04.09.2015 passed in the Eviction Proceedings, the learned Additional Rent Controller granted leave to defend to the Appellant’s father. Subsequently, Smt. Maya Devi stopped appearing in the Eviction Proceedings and the same was accordingly dismissed. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31 Signature Not Verified LPA 774/2026 9. Property bearing No. 3400, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi of the Subject Premises was notified as a Heritage Building (“Heritage Building”) in the Delhi Gazette dated 29.07.2016 (“Delhi Gazette”). 10. Smt. Maya Devi, vide Sale Deed dated 30.12.2020, sold the Subject Premises to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In 2021, the Subject Premises was demolished, following which a new structure was constructed at the Subject Premises (“New Structure”). The Appellant’s father instituted Ct. Case No. 2362/2022, titled ‘Pradeep Gupta @ Pradip Kumar v. Maya Devi & Ors.’, under Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Tis Hajari Courts, Delhi, alleging unauthorized construction of the New Structure and disputing its ownership. In the said proceedings, P.S. Hauz Qazi filed an Action Taken Report recording that the dispute between the parties in respect of the Subject Premises was civil in nature and that intimation regarding the New Structure had been sent to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) vide letters dated 15.03.2021 and 05.06.2021. 11. Thereafter, the Appellant’s father addressed a representation dated 14.02.2022 to the SHO, P.S. Hauz Qazi. Subsequently, on 24.12.2024, the Appellant’s father addressed a legal notice under Section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, to the Commissioner, MCD in relation to the sale of the Subject Premises and construction of the New Structure. The Appellant’s father expired on 20.08.2025. 12. The Appellant then instituted the Writ Petition challenging the demolition of the Subject Premises and the construction of the New Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31 Signature Not Verified LPA 774/2026 Structure thereafter, seeking, inter alia, directions to the MCD and other authorities to book, seal and demolish the New Structure. 13. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition vide the Impugned Order, holding that the Appellant, not being a person directly affected by the allegedly unauthorised New Structure, lacked locus standi to institute the Writ Petition seeking demolition of the New Structure. 14. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 15. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Appellant had no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition, as the Appellant’s grandfather and, thereafter, his father were lawful tenants of the erstwhile owner of the Subject Premises. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the tenancy rights of the Appellant in the Subject Premises (“Tenancy Rights”) were never surrendered and possession of the Subject Premises was never handed over to any other person. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that even if the Subject Premises had been demolished, the Tenancy Rights would continue to subsist unless validly terminated or surrendered. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that, since the Appellant had shifted from the Subject Premises in 2005, the Appellant had no interest in the Subject Premises. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Subject Premises continued to remain locked under the Appellant’s keys, that the Appellant and his family regularly visited the Subject Premises, and that household articles, furniture and other belongings continued to remain therein. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31 Signature Not Verified LPA 774/2026 17. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the Heritage Building formed part of the Subject Premises, which was notified as such in the Delhi Gazette, that the Heritage Building was demolished without obtaining the requisite permission of the Commissioner, MCD and that a New Structure was thereafter constructed in violation of the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016, which requires a similar structure to be constructed upon demolition of a heritage structure. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Subject Premises, despite being registered for residential use, was being misused for commercial activity. 18. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the construction on the Subject Premises has been carried out pursuant to a sanction plan and, alternatively, that the Appellant had a remedy available to approach the MCD to agitate his grievances in respect of the New Structure. 19. We have heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material placed on record. 20. The principal contention raised on behalf of the Appellant in the present Appeal is that the Tenancy Rights were never surrendered and, accordingly, the Appellant had the requisite locus standi to institute the Writ Petition seeking demolition of the New Structure. 21. In the present case, it is not disputed that the Appellant had shifted from the Subject Premises in 2005 and that the Subject Premises was demolished in 2021. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31 Signature Not Verified LPA 774/2026 22. The reliefs sought in the Writ Petition are limited to directions to the MCD to book, seal and demolish the New Structure and to take action in respect of the alleged demolition of the Heritage Building. The Appellant seeks to maintain the present proceedings based on the Tenancy Rights. However, the Appellant has not placed on record any determination of the Tenancy Rights in his favour. 23. The submission that the Subject Premises remained under the lock and key of the Appellant and that the Appellant and his family regularly visited the Subject Premises, and that household articles, furniture and other belongings continued to remain therein also pertain to the Subject Premises prior to the demolition in 2021. The Appellant admittedly shifted from the Subject Premises in 2005 and has not placed any material on record to demonstrate any direct injury or prejudice suffered by the Appellant on account of the construction of the New Structure. 24. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Tarun Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10623, observed that only a person who is an immediate neighbour and is directly affected by unauthorized construction would have the locus to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking demolition thereof. The learned Single Judge, considering that the Appellant had shifted from the Subject Premises in 2005, held that the Appellant was not directly affected by the alleged unauthorized construction and, consequently, lacked the locus to maintain the Writ Petition. We find no reason to take a different view. Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31 LPA 774/2026 25. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the Appellant lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition. The present Appeal, being devoid of merit, is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. TEJAS KARIA, J DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 Vn Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:06:31