HARISH TANDON
Amar Nath Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Kolkata Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Mr. Harish Tandon, J.
The important and interesting point has arisen in the instant writ petition pertaining to the meaning and interpretation of the word "building" appearing in Rule 73 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 in the context of the peculiar and admitted facts.
2. Admittedly, the respondent no. 7 is the owner of flat no. B-3 at 3rd floor and top floor at premise no. 530, Parnasree Pally and is also the owner of the adjacent building situated at the northern side being premise no. 522, Parnasree Pally, Kolkata. Both the premises are distinct and separate and demarcated by the boundary walls.
3. The premises no. 530, Parnasree Pally, Kolkata is developed by the owner on the basis of a sanctioned plan dated August 4, 2004 by constructing four storied building. The said newly constructed building comprised of several flats earmarked by numbers and have been sold to the petitioners and the private respondents. Each of those persons are exclusively possessioning, occupying and owing separate flats along with common rights in the common areas and facilities.
4. The disputes cropped up when the respondent no. 7 applied before the Kolkata Municipal Co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.