(S.J. Vazifdar, J.)

Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith.

2. The petitioners have challenged an order rejecting their application for regularization of the additional work carried out by them admittedly without the permission of the concerned authorities. As a result thereof, the notices under section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act have been served upon the petitioners for the removal of the same. The notices have also been challenged.

3. Firstly, the notices state that the premises of the first floor have been used for commercial purposes, which is impermissible. This however is only partly correct. Mr. Reis, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pointed out that the B.M.C. by a communication dated 25.4.2003 permitted the petitioners to use the first floor as a data processing unit. It is however, important to note that the petitioners were not granted blanket permission to use the first floor premises for any commercial purpose. The permission expressly restricts the petitioners' use of the premises as a "data processing unit". Thus the petitioners can use the first floor only for the purpose of date processing and not for any other commercial activity. It is accordingly so ordered.

4. Mr. Reis relied upon the internal noting of the officers of the B.M.C. on the basis of which he contended that the permission ought to be granted for any commercial purpose. This is an internal noting. What governs the petitioners' right is the final communication addressed to them. If the petitioners have any grievance regarding the same, they are at liberty to adopt proceedings.

5. The next violation alleged in the notice under section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act is that the petitioners have extended the front of the shop. Mr.Reis' submitted that the front of the shop has not been extended and that it is within the building line.

6. The plan submitted by the petitioners' Architect itself prima-facie indicates that the petitioners have travelled beyond the building line. The building line is clearly demarcated on the plan, which was submitted to the B.M.C. The plan indicates that the construction is beyond the same.

7. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the rejection of the proposal to extend the shop towards the back i.e. the depth of the shop. The petitioners shop at present is 9.75 mtrs. By an application, the petitioners sought regularization of an additional 5.6 mtrs. extending backwards for the purpose of storage. The impugned order rejects the same on the ground that in R-2 Zone, commercial activity can be allowed only up to 12 mtrs. from the building line.

8. Mr. Reis relied upon Development Control Regulations 52(5)(i) and 52(4)(xxxiii) which read as under :-

"52. Residential Zone with Shop Line (R-2 Zone).

(5) Conditions governing additional uses permitted in the R-2 zone -The uses permissible in the R-2 zone shall be restricted and subject to the conditions below :-

(i) A depth of 12 m. measured from the building line along the front portion abuting the street only shall be provided."

"52 (4) Uses permitted in the Residential Zone with Shop Line (R-2 zone) -The following uses shall be permitted in buildings, premises or plots in a residential zone with shopline:-

(xxxiii) Accessory uses customarily incidental to any permitted principal use, including storage upto 50 per cent of the floor area of the principal use."

9. Regulation 52(5)(i) permits a depth of 12 mtrs. and no more. Regulation 52(4)(xxxiii), permits accessory uses customarily incidental to the permitted principal use. Such use is restricted to 50% of the "floor area" of the principal use. In other words, the additional use that is permissible is with respect to the floor area. Floor area is different from depth. Regulation 52(4)(xxxiii) does not permit an increase in the depth of 12 mtrs. prescribed by Regulation 52(5)(i). If within a depth of 12 mtrs. stipulated in Regulation 52(5)(i), it is possible to have an additional area