Delhi High Court - Orders
2 Cpc) Rani Bala vs Rajan Kumar Vashisth & Anr on 15 January, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~77
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 10/2026, CM APPL. 2562/2026 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &
2 CPC)
RANI BALA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sahil Monga, Ms. Kanishka
Sharma, Mr. Keshav Pandey,
Advocates.
versus
RAJAN KUMAR VASHISTH & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. JM Kalia Advocate, Mr. Dhruv
Kalia, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 15.01.2026
1. Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Section 151 CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of the Appellant against the Judgment dated 06.11.2025 of the learned JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RCA SCJ No. 37/2017.
2. The substantial question of law rasied in the Appeal are as under:
(i) Whether right to roof provided to the builder in the collaboration agreement includes right to construct further/additional floor on the roof.
(ii) Whether a builder/promotor can violate the terms of the collaboration agreement which provides that the builder can construct the building only upto 3rd floor.
(iii) Whether if the clause of the collaboration agreement provides 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 23/01/2026 at 20:36:04 for construction of the building upto three floor can the builder construct fourth floor without consent of the landlord and in violation of the said terms of the collaboration agreement.
(iv) Whether the builder can raise unauthorized construction over the roof of the third floor without getting approval or sanction plan or map from the competent authority.
(v) Whether a builder can change the user of the first floor of the bbuilding from residential to commercial without getting any permission or paying charges to the concerned department/ MCD.
3. The Plaintiff/Appellant had filed a Suit for Permanent Injunction for restraining the Defendant/Respondent, from raising any unauthorised construction on the third floor and also to not misuse the first floor for commercial purposes. It has been further explained that the Appellant and the Respondent had entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 14.05.1994 whereby it was agreed that the Respondent shall raise construction on his own on the first, second and third floor. It was also agreed that the first and third floor shall come to the Defendant and second floor would be in the possession of the Plaintiff/Appellant. It was agreed that on the terrace over the third floor, no construction whatsoever shall be raised. It is further submitted that the Respondent has raised construction of two rooms on the terrace of the third floor and was intending to use the first floor for commercial purposes. It is clarified that subsequent to filing of the Suit, the first floor is being used as a shop for various businesses.
4. The Suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed after recording evidence by the learned Civil Judge vide Judgment dated 04.08.2017.
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 23/01/2026 at 20:36:04
5. The learned Civil Judge obsereved in the Judgment dated 04.08.2017 that while the Suit had been filed for Injunction on the apprehension that the Defendant was intedenting to open the shop, but the Defendant has admitted in his evidence that one Flower Shop has been opened on the first floor and also a Restaurant was opened by his borther's friend's brother, on license basis. However, it was noted that mere admission of the Defendant that commercial activity had been carried out on the first floor, is not sufficient to prove that the Defendant has no right to use the first floor for commercial purposes. No Official from the L&DO or any Government Department, was examined to establish that the property in question could not be used as commercial purposes.
6. It was further admitted that there are six shops on the ground floor, were being used for commeriecal purpose. It was thus, held that there was nothing to show that the property in question could not be used for commercial purposes. Furthermore, it was held that the Defendant was in possession of the first and third floor of the property in his own right. No evidence was produced to show that the construction raised by the Defendant on the thrid floor was unauthorised or in violation of provisions of Building Bye-Laws. No official from MCD or otherwise, was examined to prove that the construction was in violation of Building Bye-Laws.
7. The learned Trial Court therefore, dismissed the Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant. The Judgment has been upheld in RCA SCJ No. 37/2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge vide Judgment dated 06.11.2025.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
8. Insofar as, the alleged use or intended use of the property in question 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 23/01/2026 at 20:36:04 for commercial purposes, is concerned and also in respect of the alleged unauthorised construction, the Appellant has an alternate effacious remedy for approaching the Municipal Authorities. Moreover, insofar as, the observations in regard to the Collaboration Agreement are concerned, it needs no reiteration that such findngs have been drawn purely for the purpose of decideding whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of Injunction and does not amount to any conclusive findings, which may operate as res judicata in any subsequent litigation.
9. There is no merit in the present Appeal and no substantive question of law, has been raised.
10. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. The pending Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JANUARY 15, 2026/RS 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 23/01/2026 at 20:36:04