Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Lift Construction in DDA Flat, Finds No Violation of NOC Conditions"

Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging a trial court order that had denied interim relief against the construction of a lift in a DDA flat in Munirka Enclave. The appellant, a ground-floor resident, had objected to the construction of the lift on grounds of privacy invasion, structural instability, obstruction of light and ventilation, and violations of statutory guidelines. Justice Ravinder Dudeja upheld the trial court's decision and found no illegality or infirmity in the lift construction process.

The appellant sought to restrain the respondent from continuing construction of the lift, arguing that it infringed her right to privacy by positioning the lift opening near her bedroom window. She claimed that the lift construction obstructed light and ventilation to her bathroom, used materials not approved in the original plan, and posed structural risks to the building, which was 45 years old. Additionally, the appellant alleged that the lift extended to the terrace, violating conditions in the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and that essential services had been shifted without approval from the Residents Welfare Association (RWA). The trial court, however, had rejected the appellant’s claims, allowing the lift construction to proceed subject to compliance with statutory norms.

The High Court observed that the lift was being constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan, which did not show any direct obstruction to the appellant's window or bathroom. The Court noted that the window of the appellant's bedroom already opened into a common area accessible to the public, and the addition of the lift did not create any further significant invasion of privacy. The trial court had reasonably suggested that any privacy concerns could be mitigated by installing curtains or blinds. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual concerns with the need for modern amenities like lifts in multi-storeyed residential buildings.

On the issue of structural stability, the Court relied on the MCD’s inspection report and the statement of its Assistant Engineer, which clarified that although the lift was initially proposed to be made of steel, the use of RCC and brickwork was compliant with BIS standards and posed no structural risks. The Assistant Engineer confirmed that a Structural Stability Certificate would be required upon completion of the lift to ensure safety. The Court found no violation of Clause 4(a)(ii) of the MCD guidelines, which mandate that a lift structure must be independent of the existing building structure. While photographs submitted by the appellant showed minimal gaps between the lift and the building, the respondent explained that this was due to plastering work, which had since been rectified. The MCD’s joint inspection report confirmed a gap of 0.2 meters between the lift and the building, which the Court deemed sufficient.

The appellant had also argued that the lift extended to the terrace, which would render the NOC void under Clause-14. However, the Court found that the lift terminated at the third floor, as shown in the sanctioned site plan and confirmed by the MCD. The Assistant Engineer’s statement also clarified that the lift had not been constructed up to the terrace, defined as the space above the top slab of the building.

Regarding the shifting of essential services, the Court acknowledged that the respondent had not obtained RWA permission, as required under Clause-15 of the NOC. However, the MCD report did not indicate that any essential services had been shifted, and no complaints had been filed by the RWA. The Court left this issue open for determination at the trial stage.

The Court highlighted that the principles governing the grant of an interim injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm—had been correctly applied by the trial court. It noted that over 75% of the lift construction had already been completed, and halting the project at this stage would cause disproportionate harm to the respondent and other residents of the building who would benefit from the lift. Dismantling the partially completed structure could also pose safety risks and affect the stability of the building. The Court relied on precedents such as Deepak Sharma v. DDA (2015 SCC OnLine Del 4561) and Meera Jain v. Sundari Devi Garg (1995) 6 SCC 229, which emphasize that public interest and compliance with statutory approvals should outweigh individual grievances, provided legal safeguards are in place.

In dismissing the appeal, the Court observed that no violation of NOC conditions or statutory norms had been demonstrated. The appellant was granted the liberty to raise her objections during the trial stage, and the trial court was directed to decide the matter on merits without being influenced by observations in the present judgment. The Court made no order as to costs.

This decision underscores the judiciary’s pragmatic approach to balancing privacy concerns and modernizing infrastructure in residential buildings. It reaffirms the principle that individual objections must be substantiated and weighed against public interest, particularly when construction is being carried out in compliance with statutory norms and has reached an advanced stage.

Date of Judgment: January 27, 2025