Disposed

Abdul Azeez Adabia v. The Commissioner

Madras HC11 Nov 2022WP/25891/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging a notice regarding alleged commercial usage of a residential building where a restaurant was opened. The Court held that Appendix XVIII does not permit automatic conversion; the petitioner must apply for user conversion under Rule 6(8), and the petition was disposed of with observations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an application for conversion of user within two weeks.

Abdul Azeez Adabia Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.25891 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶8

Writ Petition No.25891 of 2022 and WMP No.24972 of 2022

¶9

Mrs.Abdul Azeez Adabia

¶10

..Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai of Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai.

¶13

The Executive Engineer – IX, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone – IX, No.1, Lake Area, 4^th street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶15

seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent in the proceeding Notice No.AEE/037/2022 dated 26.07.2022 and consequential proceeding in Notice No.Z.IX.TPENF/Dn-113/037/2022 dated 11.08.2022 and further consequential proceeding in Notice No.Zone

¶16

1/5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.25891 of 2022

¶19

IX.TPENF/DN-113/037/2022 dated 12.09.2022 and to quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Standing Counsel

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Authorities have issued a

¶24

notice on the ground that the usage of the building has been put to commercial use.

¶25

2 . Admittedly, the building has been constructed as a residential

¶26

building and the same was being used as a residential building. Recently the petitioner has opened a Restaurant in a portion of the building. Mr.P.Paramasiva Doss, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the Appendix XVIII to the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, to contend that a commercial activity, viz, Restaurant

¶27

occupying a floor area of not exceeding 500 sq. m. is permitted in a residential use zone and therefore, he would be entitled to use a portion of the

¶28

2/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.25891 of 2022

¶31

building for commercial purposes.

¶32

3 . We are unable to agree. Appendix XVIII which is part of Rule 33 of the Rules deals with Zoning Regulations and it lists out activities that could be permitted in a residential use zone. That will not confer the right on the petitioner to convert a residential building into a non-residential use. If the petitioner wants to do so, the petitioner will have to apply under Sub Rule 8 of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, seeking conversion of the user of the building. It will therefore be open to the petitioner to apply to the Competent Authority under Sub Rule 8 of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, seeking conversion of the building into a Commercial Building. We are sure that the Authorities will consider the application in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file the application within a period of two weeks from today and the Authority will pass orders within a period of 8 weeks there from. Till such time, the user of the petitioner shall not be interfered with.

¶33

4 . The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation.

¶34

3/5

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.25891 of 2022

¶37

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (K.KUMARESH BABU, J.) 11 . 11.2022

¶39

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order jv

¶40

¶41

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai of Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai.

¶42

The Executive Engineer – IX, Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone – IX, No.1, Lake Area, 4^th street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶43

4/5

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.25891 of 2022

¶46

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶47

(jv)

¶48

Writ Petition No.25891 of 2022 and WMP No.24972 of 2022

¶49

11.11.2022

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

5/5

Abdul Azeez Adabia v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Azeez Adabia v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayapandian Vs The Tamilnadu State Human Rights

National Highways Authority Vs T.Chakrapani

V.Sumathi Vs The State Human Rights Commission

K.Kandan Vs Thge Commissioner

R.Sivakumar Vs The State Level Scrutiny Committee

Elizabeth Vs M/S Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd.