Holding

A change of user of a building or part thereof sanctioned for a specific purpose is impermissible unless the regulation in force at the time of the application authorises it; therefore the Commissioner’s order and the High Court’s decision were set aside.

Summary

The Dadar Avanti Cooperative Housing Society challenged the permission granted by the Municipal Commissioner allowing two flats in its building to be used as a surgical nursing home, a change from the residential use sanctioned in the original plan. The society argued that the building was approved for residential use on upper floors and that the change of user was not permissible under the Development Control Regulations in force in 1987. The High Court had set aside the Commissioner’s order on grounds of natural justice, but the Additional Commissioner later upheld the change of user, which the society appealed. The Supreme Court examined the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, particularly sections defining building operation, development, land, and the powers to restrict or permit changes of use. It held that a building sanctioned for a specific purpose cannot be repurposed unless the regulation applicable at the time of the application authorises it, and that the Commissioner’s order and the High Court’s decision were erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the earlier orders and directing that any future application must comply with the regulations then in force.

Issues considered

Whether the Municipal Commissioner could lawfully permit a change of user from residential to commercial for flats in a building whose original plan sanctioned only residential use on upper floors.
Whether the regulation in force at the time of the application (1987) authorises such a change of user.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Commissioner’s order on the ground of natural justice.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966s. 2(14), s. 2(27), s. 2(5), s. 2(7), s. 43, s. 52, s. 56

Subjects

change of userbuilding regulationsMaharashtra Regional and Town Planning Actdevelopment controlmunicipal authorityresidential to commercial conversionnatural justice

Judgment

DADAR AVANTI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY A
LTD. BOMBAY
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 9, 1986 B
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Section 2(5),
2(7), 2(27), 43,52 and 56-Building or part of it sanctioned for specific pur-
pose-Change of user from Residential to Non-residential--Pemiission
c
granted on ground that it was pemiissible under the regulation when the
01iginal plan was sanctioned-Held, not justified as regulation in force at the
time of application did not pemiit it.

According to the approved plan, of the building of the appellant D
society, the ground floor was to be used for clinic and garage, while the
upper floors 8 were to be used for residential premises. Respondents no.
3 and 4 had purchased flats no. 3 & 4 on the second floor and converted
them into Surgical Nursing Home. Such user was objected by the Members
of appellant society, before the Additional Municipal Commissioner. In
view of this objection, the architect of the building had applied for the E
'occupation certificate' in respect of the building except flats no. 3 & 4 and
the same was granted. Respondents No. 3 & 4 made an application to the
Municipal Corporation seeking change of user of flats no. 3 & 4, from
residential to commercial, which was rejected as not in conformity with the
existing rules and regulations. Thereafter, respondents no. 3 & 4 repre- F
sented to Municipal Commissioner who by his order granted "No objec-
tion" Certificate for change of user in respect of the flats no. 3 & 4 on
second floor on certain terms and conditions, like se~arate water supply
and drainage. The appellant society then moved the High Court by filing
a writ petition challenging the order of the Municipal Commissioner. It G
was allowed by a Single Judge on the ground that there had been violation
of principle~ of natural justice as the society had not been giveii an
opportunity of hearing and directed the Municipal Commissioner to
reconsider the matter.

The Additional Commissioner after taking the representation of the H
353
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A parties in writing, finally, disposed of the matter holding that the user of
the said two flats as Surgical Nursing Home was in conf~rmity with the
existing Development Control Rules and the building bye-l~ws applicable
to Grater Bombay and permitted the change of user as sought for by
respondents No. 3 & 4. The appellant society challenged the said order by
filing a writ petition before the High Court. It was dismissed. Hence this
B appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. A combined reading of the provisions regarding change
C of user of building, and definitions of "Building operation" in Sec. 2(5),
"Development" in Section 2(7) and "land" in Sec. 2(14) of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, makes it explicitly clear that a
building or a part of the building if it has been sanctioned for a specific
purpose, user of the same for any other purpose unless permitted by the
competent authority, would be in contravention of the provisions of the
D Act. [364-C-D]

2. It cannot be said that since the change of user could have been
granted when the original plan was sanctioned, such a change can be
allowed even after lapse of two decades, such a view will make the regula-
E lions from time to time fully redundant and will frustrate the very purpose
for which regulations are made. At the point of time a change of user is
intended, the Authority should ~ee whether regulation in force permits
such change and if regulations do not permit such change, the Authority
concerned will have no power to allow such change of user. In this case,
when application for change of user was made under the regulation in force
F it was not permissible though at a later point of time the regulation has
been· changed and such permission could be accorded subject to certain
terms and conditions. The High Court erred in law in holding that the
Addi. Commissioner had power to allow such change of user even though
when the application for change of user was made the regulations did not
G authorise such change of user from residential to non- residential. Accord-
ingly order of the Addi. Commissioner as upheld by High Court is set
.aside.

(This court observed that it would be ·open to the respondents to
move the authority afresh and the said authority may pass appropriate
H orders in accordance wiih the Regulations of 1991.) [364-H; 365-A; F-G]
/

DADAR AVANT! CO.OP. HSG. SOCY. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOM. [PATIANAIK. J.] 355

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3239 of A
1996.
:r
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.94 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 826 of 1988.

D.A. Dave, Ranjit Kumar, R.N. Karanjawala Ms. Manik ~aranjawala B
and Ms. Ruby Ahuja, for the Appellants.

K.K. Singhvi, Soli J. Sorabji, B.N. Singhvi and Btij Bhushan for the
Respondents.

K.K. Singhvi, D.N. Misra for JBD & Co., for the Respondent No. 1. C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATIANAIK, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against. the judgment of the Bombay High D
Court dated September 14, 1994, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 826 of
1988. The dispute centres round the question as to whether the Municipal
Authorities respondents 1_ and 2 in this appeal could have permitted
respondents 3 and 4 to convert their flats on the second floor of the
building (Flat Nos. 3 & 4) from residential purpose to that of a commercial
one for opening of a Surgical Nursing Home. The Co-operative Society is E
the appellant whose members have purchased different flats in the buildipg
in question. M/s. Amar Builders submitted a plan to Municipal Corpora-
tion of Greater Bombay on July 25, 1979 for construction of the building
consisting of the ground floor and other 13 .floors a_t Kasturchand Mills
Compound, opposite Kabutar Khana, Dadar, Bombay. The plan which was F
approved by the Corporation indicated that the ground floor was to be
used for clinics and garages while upper floors were to be used for
residential premises. The said Builder after construction of the building
sold different flats in all the 13 floors to various persons who are members
of the society and respondents 3 and 4 who happen to be the Medical. · G
practitioner had purchased flat nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor. The
grievance of the Society and its members is that the respondents 3 and 4
have converted their flat nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor to a Surgical
Nursing Home and thereby they have not only violated the terms and
conditions of ~he sanctioned plan but also by having a Surgical Nursing
Home within a residential building is unhygienic and hazardous to the H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1?96] 2 S.C.R. I
'-
A common living. The members of the Society objected to such user by
respondents 3 and 4 before the Additional Municipal Commissioner. In
view of such objection, the Architect of the building applied for occupation ...
~

certificate on September 2, 1986 in respect of the entire building except
flat nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor. The Municipal Corporation granted
provisional occupation certificate on January 14, 1987 for entire building
B
except flat nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor. The respondents 3 and 4,
therefore, made an application to the Municipal Corporation seeking
change of user of flats 3 and 4 on the second floor of the building from
residential to commercial. The appellant society and its members as well
as the builder objected to grant of such permission. The Executive En-
C gineer Building Proposals (City) by its order dated 20th April, 1987,
rejected the application of the respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that the
proposed user was not in conformity with the existing Rules and Regula-
tions. The said Executive Engineer had also indicated in his order that the
members of the Society have complained about serious inconvenience to
D be caused to them on account of s'uch user by respondents 3 a~d 4 by
opening a Surgical Nursing Home. Against the aforesaid order of the
Executive Engineer, respondents 3 & 4 the Commissioner who by order
dated 31st July, 1987 reversed the order of the Executive Engineer and.
granted 'no objection' certificate for change of user of flats nos. 3 and 4
E on the second floor on certain terms and conditions. One of the conditions
was that separate water supply and drainage shall be provided by licenced
plumber and the stability of the structure shall not be disturbed. The
appellant society then moved the Bombay High Court by filing a Writ
Petition challenging the order of the Municipal Commissioner which was
registered as Writ Petition No. 2740 of 1987. The learned Single Judge
F disposed of the matter by order dated August 20, 1987 and allowed the
Writ Petition on the ground that there has been violation of principles of
natural justice and the society had not been given the opportunity of
hearing. The leai:ned Judge directed the Municipal Commissioner to re-
consider the mater. After the ·matter was remanded, the parties filed their
jG representation in writing before the Commissioner. The Additional Com-
mission finally by his order dated December 18, 1987, disposed of the
matter and came to the conclusion that the user of the two flats as Surgical
Clinic is in conformity with the existing Development Control Rules and
the Building Bye-laws applicable to Greater Bombay and further the
H occupants of the building were aware of the fact that the two flats were
DADARAVANTI CO.OP. HSG. SOCY. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOM. (PATTANAIK J.] 357

intended to be used for running a Surgical Clinic. With this conclusion he A
permitted change of user as sought for by respondents 3 and 4. The
appelfant society, therefore, challenged the said order by filing a Writ
Petition which was registered as Writ Petition No. 826 of 1988. The High
Court having dismissed the same by an order dated September 14, 1994
the appellants have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Peti-
B
ti on.

Mr. Dave the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended
that in view of the provisions of The Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 (Maharashtra Act No. XXXVII of 1966) (hereinafter
referred to as 'The Act') the permission for the building in question having C
been granted with the specific condition that only ground floor can be used
for commercial and clinical purpose and the permission for change of user
having been applied for only in the year 1987 at which point of time under
the Building Regulations it was not permissible for change of user, the
Commissioner as well as the High Court wholly erred in law in granting D
such permission for change of user merely on the ground that such per-
mission could have been granted when originally the plan for the building
was sanctioned. According to the learned counsel for the appellant an
allottee cannot claim to have substantive right of change of user and,
therefore, when such an application for change of user is made the relevant
Regulations in force must be adhered to by the authority conside~,ing such E
application. Consequently, it is contended that the con .missioner wholly
erred in law in relying upon the Regulations of 1966 and then granting the
permission to change over and the High Court also erred in law in granting
such permission for change of user. Learned counsel for the Development
Authority and Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior counsel appearing for the p
allottees in whose favour the permission to change over has been accorded,
on the other hand contended, that the authorities were fully justified in
allowing the application of the allottees for change of user from residential
to commercial since they could have got this permission when the plan
· itself was originally sanctioned and the authorities rightly accorded such
permission. The correctness of the rival submissions would require an G
indepth examination of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder.

The Act is intended to make provisions for planning the development
and use of land and to ensure that Town Planning Schemes are made in a H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A proper manner and their execution is made effective. In a city like Bombay
where there is acute dearth of vacant sites and where there is rapid
increase of population, unless developmental authorities are conferred with
power to regulate constructions of building and unless development take
place in a planned manner it will be hazardous for a healthy living. With
this end in view the Act has been enacted constituting Regional Planning
B Boards and providing for development plans by a Development Authority.
The Act also provides the procedure to be followed in preparing and
sanctioning development plans and it also provides for control of develop-
ment and use of land included in the development plans. The Act confers
power on the Planning Authority to take such remedial measure if it comes
c to its notice that there has been unauthorised development. The Planning
Authority has also the power to require removal of authorised development
or use if the authority thinks it expedient in the interest of proper planning
and its area. Such drastic power has been conferred on the authority with
the obvious object that the said authority would act in a manner which is
D not detrimental to the human health and the unauthorised development or
user. of the land should be prohibited from such user so that there would
be development of the city in a planned manner. If such unauthorised user
of the land is not checked by such Planning Authority then in cities like
Bombay where ·the growth rate of inhabitant is fast it would be difficult to
have a comfortable living.
E
Before we focus our attention to the different provisions of the Act
it would be appropriate to notice the admitted facts, namely, the builder
submitted the plan of the building in July 1979 which was approved by the
• Corporation. The approved plan indicated that only the ground floor would
F be used for clinics and garages and rest of the floors would be used for
residential purposes. The Architect of the building even when applied for
'Occupation Certificate' in September 1986 he did not make an application
for Flat Nos. 3 and 4 on the second floor as the allottees were insisting for
using the same as clinic which was contrary to the sanctioned plan. The
respondents nos. 3 and 4 made an application in April 1987 seeking change
G of user of the plots.

Section 2(5) defines building operation thus;

''building operations" includes erection or re-erection of a
H building, or any part thereof, roofing or re-roofing of any part of
DADAR A VANT! CO.OP. HSG. SOCY. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOM. [PATTANAIK, J. J 359

a building or of any open space, any material alteration or enlar- A
gement of a building, any such alteration of a building as is likely
to affect an alteration of its drainage or sanitary arrangement or
materially affect its security, or the construction of a door opening
on any streets, or land not belonging to the owner.'

Section 2(7) defines 'development' thus ; B

'"development' with its grammatical variations means the car-
rying out of buildings, engineering, or other, operations in, or over,
or under, land or the making of any material change, in any

- building or land or in the use of any building or land and includes
reclamation, redevelopment and lay out and sub-division of any
land; and 'to develop' shall be construed accordingly"
C

Section 2(14) defines 'land' thus;

'"land' includes benefits to arise out of land, and things, at- D
tached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached
to the earth"

Section 2(27) defines 'Regulations' thus;

"'regulation' means a regulation made under section 159 of this E
Act and includes zoning and other regulation made as a part of a
Regional Plan, Development plan, or town planning scheme"

Section 21 in Chapter III provides for preparation, submission and
sanction to Development Plan and under Section 22 the said Development
Plan shall indicate the manner in which the use of land in the area of a F
Planning Authority shall be regulated as well as the manner in which the
development of land therein shall be carried out.

Section 23 is the procedure prescribed to be followed in preparing
and sanctioning Development Plans. G
Section 26 provides for preparation and publication of notice of
Draft Development Plan.

Section 28 provides for filing objections to the Draft Development
~ H
;

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A Section 43 puts restriction on development of land which is quoted
herein-below in extenso : -

"43. After the date on which the declaration of intention to
prepare a Development plan for any area is published in the
Official Gazette or after the date on which a notification specifying
B any undeveloped area as a notified area, or any area designated
as a site for a new town, is published in the Official Gazette, no
person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out
any development of land without the permission in writing of the
Planning Authority:
c
Provided that, no such permission shall be necessary -

(i) for carrying out works for the maintenance, improvement
or other alteration of any building, being works which affect only
the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the
D external appearance thereof;

(ii) the carrying out of works in compliance with any order or
direction made by any authority under any law for the time being.
in force;
E
(iii) the carrying out of works by any authority in exercise of
its powers under any law for the time being in force;

(iv) for the carrying by the Central or the State Government or
any local authority of any works -
F
(a) required for the maintenance or improvement of a highway,
road or public street, being works carr-ied out on land within the
. boundaries of such highway, road or public street;

(b) for the purpose of inspecting, repai1ing or renewing any
G
drains, sewers, mains, pipes, cable, telephone or other apparatus
including the breaking open of any street or other land for that
purpose;

(v) for the excavation (including wells) made in the ordinary
H course of agricultural operation;
DADAR AVANT! CO.OP. HSG. SOCY. Lill. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOM. [PATIANAIK, J.] 361

(vi) for the construction of a road intended to give access to A
land solely for agricultural purposes;

(vii) for normal use of land which has been used temporarily
for other purposes;

(viii) in case of land, normally used for one purpose and B
occasionally used for any other purpose, for the use of land for
that other purpose on occasions;

(ix) for use, for any purpose incidental to the use of a building
for human habitation of any other building or land attached to
such building"
c
Section 44 provides for application for permission for development.

Section 45 is the power of the Planning Authority to grant or refuse
perm1ss10n.
D
Section 46 provides that the Planning Authority in considering ap-
plication for permission shall have due regard to the provisions of any draft
or final plan submitted or sanctioned under the Act.

Section 52 provides penalty on unauthorised development or for use
otherwise than in confirmity with Development Plan. Said Section is ex-
E
tracted hereinbelow in extenso :

"52. (1) Any person who, whether at his own instance or at the
instance of any other person commences, undertakes or carries out
development or institutes, or changes the use of any land, - F
(a) without permission required under this Act; or

(b) which is not in accordance with any permission granted or
in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission
has been granted; G
(c) after the permission for development has been duly

- revoked; or

( d) in contravention of any permission which has been duly
modified, shall, on conviction, (be punished with imprisonment for H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A a term which may extend to three years, or with fine .which may
extend to five thousand rupees or with both) and in the case ~f a
continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to· one
hundred rupees for every day during which the offence continues
after conviction for the first commission of the offence.

B (2) Any person who continues to use or allows use of any land
or building in contravention of the provision of a Development
plan without being allowed to db so under section 45 or 47, or
where the continuance of such use has been allowed under that
section continues such use after the period for which the use has
c been allowed or without complying with the terms and conditions
under which the continuance of such use is allowed, shall, on
conviction be punished (with fine which may extend to five
thousand rupees); and in the case of a continuing offence, with a
further fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every
day during which such offence continues after conviction for the
D first commission of the offence".

Section 54 confers power on the Planning Authority to stop un-
authorised development and Section 55 confers power on the Planning
Authority for removal or discontinuance of unauthorised development.
E
Section 56 confers power on the Planning Authority even to require
removal of authorised development or use if the Authority feels that it is
expedient in the interest of proper planning of its areas.

Section 56 is extracted hereinbelow in extenso : -
F
"56. (1) If it appears to a Planning Authority that it is expedient
in the interest of proper planning of its areas (including the interest
of amenities) having regard to the Development plan prepared, - --
(a) that any use ofland should be discontinued, or
G
(b) that any conditions should be imposed on the continuance
thereof; or

(c) that any buildings or works should be altered or removed,
H the Planning Authority may, by notice served on the owner,
DADAR AVANT! CO.OP. HSG. SOCY. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOM. [PATTANAIK. J.] 363

(i) require the discontinuance of that use; or A

(ii) impose such conditions as may be continuance thereof; or

(iii) require such steps, as may be specified in the notice be
taken for the alteration or removal of any buildings or works, as
the case may be, B

within such period, being not less than one month, as may be
specified therein, after the service of the notice.

(2) Any person aggrieved by such notice may, within the said
period and in the manner prescribed, appeal to the State Govern- c
ment.

(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (2), the State
Government or any other person appointed by it in this behalf may,
after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appel- D
!ant and the Planning Authority, dismiss the appeal or allow the
appeal by quashing or varying the notice as it may think fit.

(4) If any person. -

(i) who has suffered damage in consequence of the compliance E
with notice by the depreciation of any interest in the land to which
he is entitled or by being disturbed in his enjoyment of the land
or otherwise; or

(ii) who has carried out any works m compliance with the
notice, F

claims from the Planning Authority, within the time and in the
manner, prescribed compensation in respect of that damage, or of
any expenses reasonably incurred by him for complying with the
notice, then the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section G
51 shall apply in relation to such claim as those provisions apply
to claims for compensation under those provisions.

(5) If any person having interest in land in respect, of which a
notice is issued under this section claims that by the reason of the
compliance with the notice, the land will become incapable of H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A reasonably beneficial use, he may within the period specified in
the notice or within such period after the disposal of the appeal,
if any, filed ~nder sub-section (2) and in the manner prescribed,
serve on the State Government a purchase notice requiring his
interest in the land to be acquired; and thereupon, the provisions
of section 49 for dealing with a purchase notice shall, so far as can
B
be made applicable, apply as they apply to a purchase notice under
that section."

A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions and the definitions
of 'building operation' in Section 2(5), 'development' in Section 2(7) and
c 'land' in Section 2(14) make it explicitly clear that a building or a part of
a building if it has been sanctioned for a specific purpose, user of the same
for any other purpose, unless permitted by the competent Authority, would
be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is indeed on this score
the Architect of the building did not apply for completion certificate in
D respect of flats nos. 3 and 4 allotted to respond~nts as they wanted to use
the same for commercial purposes though under the sanctioned plan only
the ground floor has been permitted to be used as commercial purpose
and it is then in 1987 the respondents nos. 3 and 4 made application for
change of user. We are unable to accept the submissions made by the
counsel appearing for the Development Authority as well as Mr. Sorabjee,
E learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 that since such
change of user could have been allowed when the plan was originally
sanctioned there is no bar in allowing the same in the year 1987. It is
conceded that when application for change of user was made under the
regulation in force it was not permissible for allowing change of user from
F residential to commercial though at later point of time the regulation has
been changed and such permission can be accorded subject to certain
terms and conditions which includes the requirement of making an inde-
pendent access to the building. Keeping in view the very object of the Act
and regulations made therein and keeping in view the fact that regulations
are changed from time to time in keeping with the need of the time it is
G difficult for us to accept the contentions of the counsel appearing for the
Development Authority that since a change of user could have been
granted when the original plan was sanctioned, such a change can be
allowed even after a lapse of two decades. Such a view will make the
regulations from time to time fully redundant and will frustrate the very
H purpose for which such regulations are made. It would be only reasonable
DAD AR AV ANTI CO.OP. HSG. S~CY. LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF GREATER BOM [PATTANAIK. J.] 365

to hold that at the point of time when a change of user is intended whether A
the regulation in force permits such change and if the regulations do not
permit such change the concerned Authority will have no power to allow
such change of user. This being the position we have not hesitation to come
to the conclusion that the Commissioner as well as the High Court totally
erred in law in holding that the Commissioner had the power to allow such
B
change of user even though when the application for change was made the
regulations did not authorise such change of user. The order of the
Commissioner as well as the High Court, therefore, is not sustainable.

ln course of hearing it was also pointed out to us by the counsel
appearing for the Development Authority that in the subsequent Regula- C
tion of 1991 (Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay 1991)
which has come into force with effect from 25th March 1991 clinics are
permissible in residential area upto second floor with the condition that
there should be a separate access. The High Court while dismissing the
Writ Application has taken that into consideration and has found that there D

.. has been no error in granting permission in the order of the Commissioner.
It is to be noted that the order of Additional Commissioner is dated
December 18, 1987, allowing such change of user of the flats from residen-
tial to surgical clinic and the regulation of 1991 came into force with effect
from 25th March 1991 and, therefore, the said Regulation should not have
been pressed into service for deciding the legality of the order of the E
Additional Commissioner. In the aforesaid premises we hold that the
Additional Commissioner had no power to allow the change of user sought
for by respondents 3 and 4 and the High Court also committed error in
upholding the said order. We accordingly set aside the order of the
Additional Commissioner as well as the High Court and allow this appeal. F
Needless to mention that since the Regulation of 1991 empowers the
concerned Authority to allow change of user it would be open for the
respondents to move the authority afresh and the .said authority may pass
appropriate orders in accordance with the Regulations of 1991 which is
said to be in force. This appeal is allowed.
G
There will be no order as to costs.

B.K.S. Appeal allowed.