* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 08.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 15.12.2025

+ FAO 333/2025, CM APPL. 74955/2025 & CM APPL. 74956/2025

SIR SOBHA SINGH AND SONS PVT LTD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Shaunak Kashyap, Ms. Mayanka Dhawan, Mr. Vikram Kalra, Mr. Apratim Animesh Thakur, Ms. Varsha Pal and Mr. Kartikaya

Gautam, Advocates.

Versus

SMT RAJDIP BAMBAWALE & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Sumit and Mr. D.K. Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the plaintiff in C.S. NO. 311/2025 on the file of the District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2025, by which the trial court dismissed their application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, whereby the plaintiff had sought to dismantle the old

lift and install a new lift at his own cost.

2. In this appeal, the parties shall be referred to as described in the plaint filed before the trial court.

3. The brief facts as stated in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff, a private limited Company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is the lawful owner and landlord of the buildings at Sujan Singh Park, North and South, New Delhi- 110003, which have been constructed on leasehold land under the Land and Development Office vide registered agreements for lease, both dated 08.10.1945. Defendant no. 1 was inducted as a rd tenant, based on an oral agreement, in Flat No. 84, Block G, 3 Floor, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi (the tenanted property). Thereafter, defendant nos. 2 and 3, the sons of defendant no. 1, were also inducted as joint tenants in the said property. During the construction of all the flat blocks, a lift-well was constructed along with the mumty area on the terrace as part of the building, with the option to install a lift and machines at a later time.

3.1. In the year 1986, after the inception of the tenancy of defendant no. 1, she approached the plaintiff seeking permission/no-objection for sanction of power load for the operation of a lift in the lift-well of Block-G. On 30.01.1986, the plaintiff granted permission to her for additional power load to install a lift in the lift shaft of Block-G. The permission was in the nature of a license to defendant no. 1 for the installation and use of the lift and was intended for the benefit of all the residents. The permission was in the nature of a revocable license to use the lift and did not in any manner confer any exclusive or possessory rights over the lift, lift-well, machine room or any other portion of Block-G to the defendants.

3.2. In the year 2013, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendants had, without seeking permission and consent from the plaintiff, caused multiple encroachments and had carried out illegal constructions in Block-G by: (i) constructing a wooden cabin in the common area outside the tenanted flat; (ii)

rd blocking the common 3 floor landing of the lift (fire escape route) by enclosing it; (iii) constructing two bathrooms on the terrace for their servants; and (iv) illegally locking the terrace machine room and lift shaft.

3.3. The plaintiff issued a legal notice dated

22.02.2013,terminating the tenancy of the defendants on account of the said unauthorised constructions and calling upon them to handover possession of the tenanted premises in its original condition. A reply dated 11.03.2013, inter alia, denying carrying out the illegal constructions was received. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff filed an eviction petition, being R.C. No. 5658/2016 under Sections 14(l)(j) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,seekingeviction of the tenanted premises. However, the plaint was dismissed vide judgement dated 09.07.2018 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove as to who had illegally and in an unauthorised manner made a