A former tenant without direct injury lacks locus to seek demolition of alleged illegal construction.

The appellant’s grandfather became a tenant of the subject premises in 1958; the tenancy devolved upon the appellant’s father, who moved out in 2005.

After the premises were notified as a heritage building in 2016, they were sold to private respondents in 2020, demolished in 2021, and replaced by a new structure.

The appellant’s father had earlier challenged the construction and ownership, and the appellant later filed a writ petition seeking, among other reliefs, directions to the MCD to book, seal and demolish the new structure.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant lacked locus standi because he was not directly affected by the alleged unauthorised construction.

The appellant challenged that dismissal, relying on asserted subsisting tenancy rights.

1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to maintain a writ petition seeking action against the new structure on the basis of asserted tenancy rights in the demolished premises.

2. Whether the appellant demonstrated direct injury or prejudice from the construction sufficient to challenge it under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Under Article 226, a person seeking demolition of allegedly unauthorised construction must show that they are directly affected; the Court relied on Tarun Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10623, which it understood to require that the petitioner be an immediate neighbour directly affected by the construction.

The Court also considered that the appellant had placed no determination of his asserted tenancy rights in his favour on the record.

The judgment did not decide the underlying merits of the alleged heritage or building-law violations.

The appellant had shifted from the premises in 2005, and the premises were demolished in 2021.

His claims that the premises remained locked, that he and his family visited, and that belongings were kept there related to the period before demolition; he produced no material establishing direct injury or prejudice caused by the new construction.

Nor had he placed any determination of tenancy rights in his favour on record.

Applying Tarun Kumar, the Court agreed that the appellant was not directly affected in the manner required to invoke writ jurisdiction for the reliefs sought.

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit; pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.