JUDGMENT :

B.C. Patel, J.

Special Civil Application No. 8931 of 2000 has been filed by Centre Point Welfare Association. S.C.As. No. 8553 of 2000 and 8781 of 2000 have been filed by the Nita International. Spl. C.A. No.8930 of 2000 has been filed by Nijhawan Travels Pvt. Ltd., occupier of shops No. 54 and 48.

2. On 17/8/2000 it was stated before the Court by the learned counsel appearing for the Centre Point Welfare Association-occupiers, (hereinafter referred to as "Association" or "Occupiers") that all the 4 complexes i.e. A, B, C and D shall not be used for the purpose other than residence and they shall discontinue the use as office complex by mid-night of Sunday - 20/8/2000.

3. On 1/9/2000 the Court passed an order in Civil Application No. 7851 of 2000 to the effect that the matter is already pending before the Apex Court and hence the Court is not in a position to pass any order more particularly when the cognisance is already taken by the Apex Court.

4. S.C.A. No. 8781 of 2000 was filed by Nita International for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 20/7/2000 u/s. 260 (1) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (for short 'the BPMC Act') and notice u/S. 260 (2) of the BPMC Act dated 5/8/2000. It was also prayed that the respondent Corporation should seal the shops and offices in Centre Point since the same are being used without Building Use permission (hereinafter referred to as "B.U. Permission") and the petitioner requested to direct the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (for short "Corporation") to remove the shops from the cellar as the shops were constructed against approved plan and to see that the space is made available for the purpose of parking. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the Corporation to provide fire safety measures as the developer/builder has not provided.

5. The Division Bench heard the matters and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners - occupiers - shop keepers that they were not only cheated but were defrauded; that the builder had acted in breach of the provisions contained in the law and therefore, they should not be made to suffer. The Court considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Council And Anr. (1997) 6 S.C.C. 370 and particularly para. 12, of the judgment, issued notice to the builder firm and also its partners (hereinafter referred to as "Builder"). In response to the notices, the Builder M/s. Hasmukh Shah and its partners Mr. Hasmukh Shah and Mr. Upendra Shah appeared before the Court.

6. Before considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Builder, it would be just and proper to consider the background. The Court found that the use of the building was not in conformity with the zoning regulations in so far as the building in question is concerned. The plans were submitted for the use of the construction of the building for the purpose of residence only with certain number of shops to fulfil the need of the persons who may occupy the building or the residents of nearby areas. The tower in question was erected contrary to the building regulations. Instead of the use for the purpose of the residence, the tower in question was being used for the purpose of office complex. The Court pointed out that such use will cause nuisance and/or annoyance to the other genuine occupiers of the building. People who have purchased the property for the purpose of residence, if were told that part of the building is to be used for the purpose other than the residence, then they may not have purchased a flat in such a tower as the buyers may think that they will not get peace on account of the nuisance and annoyance which is a necessary consequence of commercial use. When people are buying the property with the bona fide belief that they will have a good residential complex and without disturbance of others they will be in a position to enjoy a housing accommodation, they must b