Unauthorised construction if can be permitted to be occupied by lessee or owner pending consideration of application by owner.

K.A. SWAMY, C. J.

These two appeals arise out of the order dated 2-3-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No. 2146 of 1993 and Contempt Appln. No. 388 of 1993, W.A. No. 420 of 1994 is prefered by the owner of the premises, whereas W.A. No. 425 of 1994 is preferred by Hotel Saravana Bhavan, claiming to be the lessee of the premises.

2. The petitioner is an Ex-Member of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, for short, 'M.M.D.A.'. He sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2, the M.M.D.A. and the Corporation of Madras, to take appropriate action against the third respondent owner of the premises, and stop the constructions that are being put up by her on the property bearing Door No. Y 209, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras 600 040, and also to demolish the unauthorised constructions put up by her in the aforesaid property and pass such other orders as are deemed necessary. Learned single Judge has held that the construction put up on the land bearing Door No. Y 209, Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras 600 040, hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question', comprising of the first, second and third floors is an unauthorised construction; therefore, action for demolition in accordance with law should be taken. Of course, the building standing on the land in question consists of, cellar, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. The directions given by the learned single Judge appear to cover the cellar and the ground floor also. However, the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition filed by the petitioner do not include the cellar and the ground floor. The directions given by the learned single Judge are as follows :

"(1) The 1st respondent is directed to take action against the unauthorised construction by the 3rd respondent, subject to the vacation ' of the injunction order of the City Civil Court and subject to the other statutory provisions in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the Development Control Rules.

(2) The 2nd respondent is directed to take action if there is any deviation in respect of the basement and the ground floor, subject to the vacation of the injunction order granted by the City Civil Court and subject to the other provisions of law and the City Municipal Corporation Act.

(3) Respondents 1 and 2 shall also take steps to have the orders of injunction vacated, because those orders seem to be directly in conflict with the statutory provisions. It is equally open to the petitioner to implead himself in the Civil suit and have the injunction vacated.

(4) The 3rd respondent is restrained by an order of injunction from leasing out the first, second and third floors of the property to any one, at Door No. Y 209, Second Avenue, Anna Nagar, Madras 40, until she gets proper sanction authorising the construction of the said floors by the 1st respondent.

3. As far as the order passed in Contempt Application No. 388 of 1993 is concerned, no grievance is made before us; therefore, we do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing C.A. No. 388 of 1993.

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the directions given by the learned single Judge are quite contrary to Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'; that the learned single Judge has not taken into consideration the fact that the building, comprised of first, second and third floors, standing on the land in question, was leased to the appellant in W.A. No. 425 of 1994 on 24-9-1992 itself, as such, the direction that it should not be leased to anyone is not correct and cannot be considered to be in accordance with law; that, even in the case of unauthorised construction, the procedure prescribed in Section 56 of the Act has to be followed and, during the pendency of the proceeding initiated under Section 56 of the Act, it is