A residential building's principal occupancy must be for residential purposes in its entirety, and change of use to mixed occupancy requires permission and compliance with relevant provisions.

Barin Ghosh, J.: This writ petition is by four petitioners. The petitioners are challenging the decision of the respondent Corporation to levy conservancy charges at the rates of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 12,000/- for large premises let out for ceremonial functions having open space including garden exceeding 1000 sq. ft. and 2,500 sq. ft. respectively. In paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the petition, the petitioners have alleged as follows:

“2. your petitioner No.1 is in lawful occupation of a portion of premises No. 24, Camac Street, Kolkata 700 017 and is entitled to hire out and let out the same, inter alia, for the purpose of holding functions.

3. Your petitioner No.2 is one of the co-owners of premises No. 4A, Short Street, Kolkata 700 016 and is entitled to hire out and let out the same, inter alia, for the purpose of holding functions.

4. Your petitioner No.3 is the owner of premises No. 38, Ballygunge Park, Kolkata 700 019 and is entitled to hire out and let out the same, inter alia, for the purpose of holding functions.

5. Your petitioner No.4 is the owner of premises No. 13/1, Ballygunge Park, Kolkata 700 019 and is entitled to hire out and let out the same, inter alia, for the purpose of holding functions."

2. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is the contention of the petitioners that in view of paucity of open space in and around Kolkata, many residents of Kolkata are compelled to hold various ceremonial and other functions in residential houses which are partially and occasionally let out for such purposes and that the petitioners occasionally let out portions of their respective properties temporarily and on daily basis for holding ceremonial functions and for other purposes. Although it has not been stated in the petition but it has been admitted at the bar that the properties, which the petitioners are letting out, were erected on the basis of sanctions accorded by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for erecting residential buildings. In paragraph 7 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioners are letting out the properties in question for holding ceremonial functions and for other purposes including marriage ceremonies, annaprasan, sradh ceremonies, small functions, which include holding religious discourses, social and charitable functions, small get-together, etc. It has been stated that the properties though are large with large open spaces, yet on many occassions small portions of the same are used by various hirers for holding small functions because of the convenient locations of the properties and for such occasions reduced charges are collected by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners in paragraph 8 of the petition that the municipal taxes of the properties in question are equivalent to 60 per cent of the national income calculated on the basis of 72 days of commercial use in a year. It is the case of the petitioners in the petition that although it is the obligation of the respondent Corporation to collect, remove and dispose of solid waste and for that matter the Corporation though is entitled to levy reasonable costs incurred for removal of such waste or rubbish, the impugned claim is unreasonable.

3. Before one can challenge such a claim he must demonstrate that he has locus standi to challenge the same. In other words he must demonstrate first that he is otherwise entitled to use the property in question in the manner he is using the same and then he can contend that by reason of such use the waste that has accumulated is required to be removed at a reasonable cost to be paid by him and that the impugned claim is unreasonable.

4. Chapter 22 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 deals with buildings. The said chapter covers sections 390 to 415 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 390 of the Act defies the expression “to erect a building”. Subsection (2) of the said section defines the expressions “occupancy” or “use-group”.

Sub-section (2) of section 390 of the Act is as