R SATYANARAYANA Vs. SHANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the owner of a building which is a lodging house constructed sometime in the year 1981. respondent 1 filed a writ petition inter alia contending that this building was constructed in a residential area and the Corporation could not have given permission to construct a commercial building in a residential area. The second contention was that the existing bye-laws were violated. When no action was taken by the Corporation, respondent 1 filed a writ petition.

(2.) The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. When the division bench heard the appeal, it was brought to its notice that in 1984 there had been a change in the zoning regulations of the building bye-laws. A report from the Commissioner was called for and it was accepted by the division bench, on the basis of the said report, that the property in question now fell in the commercial zone and was no longer in the residential zone. The High court then issued the following directions:

(3.) The only grievance of Mr. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the building was constructed in the year 1981 and it conformed with the then existing building bye-laws. The only problem at that time was with regard to the user of the building. Now in 1984 the user having been changed, no objection could be taken to that. This contention of Mr. Bhat is correct. Mr. Bhat further submits that at the time when the building was constructed it was in accordance with the then subsisting building bye-laws and if there has been any change in the building bye-laws in 1984, those bye-laws could not be made applicable to the existing building. The submission of Mr. Bhat, therefore, is that the direction of the High court that the Commissioner of the Corporation should examine the building with relation to the existing bye-laws was not correct.