Delhi HC Dismisses Resident’s Lift-NOC Challenge, Says MCD Tribunal Is Proper Forum for Disputed Balcony-Obstruction Claims

In brief

The question

1. Whether a challenge to the MCD’s permission for lift installation should be pursued before the ATMCD, rather than by a writ petition under Article 226.

The court held

The Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.

It also directed

The Court dismissed the petition and pending application, with no order as to costs. The interim stay granted on 13 June 2026 was vacated.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged the MCD’s NOC dated 24 March 2026 for installation of a lift at the front end of a building in Saraswati Enclave Group Housing Society. He alleged that the proposed location would obstruct sunlight and fresh air to his first-floor balcony and departed from the locations of six existing lifts, which were installed at rear or blind walls. He sought cancellation of the NOC and installation of the lift at an alternative location.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1–4

The private respondents disputed any actual obstruction and contended that the challenge lay before the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD). The MCD stated that the site was viable and that the NOC had been issued following due process.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether a challenge to the MCD’s permission for lift installation should be pursued before the ATMCD, rather than by a writ petition under Article 226.

p. 4 · ¶ 8–9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner established grounds for quashing the NOC on the basis that the proposed lift would obstruct sunlight and fresh air, or otherwise warranted relief under Article 226.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11

03Law Applied

Section 336 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (the “Act”) concerns sanction for the erection of a building or execution of work; a challenge to permission for lift installation, involving construction-related work requiring MCD approval, falls within that provision and is appealable under Section 347B of the Act.

p. 4 · ¶ 9

The Court relied on Sh. S. S. Chouhan & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 17747/2022, and Sudha Ramanathan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(C) 15788/2023, and noted that the position in Sh. S. S. Chouhan was affirmed in Chander Kant Sood & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., LPA 560/2025.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9

The Court also treated disputed factual questions requiring trial as unsuitable for determination in its writ jurisdiction, as it was not a fact-finding authority.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Section 336

04Reasoning

The Court characterized the challenge to the NOC as, in substance, a challenge to a construction-related sanction under Section 336 of the Act, for which Section 347B provides an appellate remedy. It therefore considered the ATMCD the appropriate forum for the challenge.

p. 4 · ¶ 9

In addition, the photographs and other material on record did not establish the alleged obstruction of sunlight or fresh air, and the petitioner had produced no report substantiating that claim. The Court regarded the disputed allegations as factual matters requiring determination beyond the proper scope of the writ proceedings.

p. 5 · ¶ 10