Disposed¶25

Pavan Gandas v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/6579/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC writ petition disposed (07.11.2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna): son files W.P.(C) 6579/2025 against father alleging commercial misuse of residential property 52B/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj; non-disclosure of father-son relationship; Court refuses to settle personal scores/inter-se family disputes; MCD Status Report shows cognizance of misuse already taken; no present misuse/unauthorized activity; MCD directed to act per law ensuring only permissible activities; respondent no. 2's legal remedies reserved; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the MCD to take action in accordance with law to ensure that only activities permissible as per law are carried out from the premises; respondent no. 2's right to seek remedies in accordance with law reserved. ¶25

Pavan Gandas Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the residential property No. 52B/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 was being misused for commercial purposes by respondent no. 2, warranting directions to respondent no. 1 (MCD) to restrain such misuse. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

On perusal of the MCD's Status Report, the MCD had already taken cognizance of the misuse in the property in question.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, being the son of respondent no. 2, was attempting to settle personal scores with his father by impleading him as respondent no. 2; the contention that the relationship was disclosed through the Memo of Parties was held unacceptable.

¶16

Key takeaways

The Court declined to enter into the inter-se disputes between the parties or to act as a tool for settling personal scores.ratio¶16
The MCD was directed/enjoined to take action in accordance with law to ensure that only activities permissible as per law are carried out from the premises in question.ratio¶23
The Court recorded (taking note of the statement of learned counsel for the MCD) that as on the date of the order there was no misuse of the property in question and no unauthorized activity was being carried out from therein.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) 6579/2025, decided 07.11.2025, Mini Pushkarna, J): The petitioner sought directions to the MCD to restrain alleged commercial misuse of residential property No. 52B/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 by respondent no. 2. Counsel for respondent no. 2 pointed out that the petitioner is respondent no. 2's son and that this relationship, along with related property disputes, had not been disclosed in the petition; the petitioner's claim that disclosure appeared in the Memo of Parties was rejected. Holding that the petitioner, being the son, was attempting to settle personal scores with his father, the Court declined to adjudicate inter-se disputes or act as a tool for settling personal scores. Relying on the MCD's Status Report showing that the MCD had already taken cognizance of the misuse, and noting counsel's statement that no misuse or unauthorized activity existed as on that date, the Court directed the MCD to take action in accordance with law so that only permissible activities are carried out from the premises, reserved respondent no. 2's right to seek remedies against any MCD action, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6579/2025

¶4

PAVAN GANDAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Divye Puri, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Adv. for R- 1

¶7

Mr. Sanjiv Sharma and Mr. Siddant Rai Sethi, Advs. for R-2 with R-2 in person

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R % 07.11.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent no.1 for restraining the misuse of residential property bearing No. 52B/9, Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj , New Delhi-110070 for commercial purposes by respondent no. 2.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioner is the son of respondent no. 2, which fact has not been disclosed in the present writ petition.

¶12

It is further submitted that the petitioner has raised certain property disputes, as well with respect to the properties owned by respondent no. 2.

¶13

On a pointed query by this Court, as to where the aforesaid facts have been disclosed in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is clear from the Memo of Parties that he had disclosed the name of petitioner’s father.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 10/11/2025 at 16:34:43

¶16

The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner is unacceptable. Clearly, the petitioner, being the son, is trying to settle personal scores with his father, by impleading him as respondent no. 2. 6. The Court will not go into the inter-se disputes between the parties or become a tool for the purposes of settling personal scores. 7. A Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), relevant portions of which, read as under:

¶17

“xxx xxx xxx

¶18

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 10/11/2025 at 16:34:43

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

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 10/11/2025 at 16:34:43

¶21

”

¶22

Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report shows that the MCD has already taken cognizance of the misuse in the property in question.

¶23

The MCD is enjoined upon to take action, in accordance with law, to ensure that only activities, which are permissible as per law, are carried out from the premises in question.

¶24

This Court takes note of the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the MCD that as on today, there is no misuse of the property in question and no unauthorized activity is being carried out from therein. 11. Needless to state, in case the respondent no. 2 is aggrieved by any action on the part of the MCD, his right to seek remedies, in accordance with law, is reserved.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶27

NOVEMBER 7, 2025/KR

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 10/11/2025 at 16:34:43

Pavan Gandas v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavan Gandas v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Om and Anr. Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Tarun Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 16(2)NEW Delhi

Mr. Sunil Kumar Vs Labour Commissioner North District & Ors.

Dr B S Kushwah Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delicious Coco Water Private Ltd. Vs Small Industrial Development Bank of India & Anr.

Smt Seema and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Neeru Malhotra Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Tarun Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Hukam Chand and Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi ) and Ors.

M/S Seema Pandey Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjogita Agarwal and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Sarvan Kumr Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Afsar Ali Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.