A tenant lacks the locus standi to challenge enforcement actions against building plan deviations or demand structural rectifications, as such rights reside exclusively with the building owners.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st respondent in Letter No.11675650/UD 8(2)/2025 dated 21.04.2026 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary, unsustainable in Law consequently direct the 1st respondent to adjudicate the petitioners revision, case a fresh and pass.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the tenant occupying the premises, which have been found to be constructed in violation of building plan permission.

2. The prime submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that, at the instigation of the landlord, who is intent upon evicting the petitioner, a writ petition was filed by the Flat Owners' Association, in which the Court has directed the CMDA to conduct an inspection of the subject property, verify the correctness of the allegations and thereafter undertake the exercise of removing unauthorized construction, if any, within a period of twelve weeks. In connivance with the landowners, it is alleged that the impugned notice dated 21.04.2026 was issued, which on the face of it bristles with mala fides.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the deviation from the permitted plan during construction on the second floor is merely an internal change, which does not affect the structural stability of the building so as to warrant demolition. Secondly, by an order of lock and seal, the fundamental right to trade of the petitioner, who has been running restaurant within the premises for the past 23 years, will be deprived without following the due process of law. Thirdly, the request of the petitioner to appoint a qualified structural engineer to inspect the building and verify whether the alleged violation of the building plan will affect the structural stability of the building was not considered by the authorities. The request was rejected on the ground that the petitioner, is not the owner of the building and therefore, there cannot be a request for rectification of the building plan.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the subject building has been constructed in violation of the sanctioned building plan, affecting not only a specific portion but the entire structure. Therefore, he submitted that the allegations of mala fides regarding the action taken by the 1st respondent are entirely baseless.

4.1. Insofar as the averment that putting up an additional floor without mezzanine floor as approved will not affect the structural stability of the building are entirely unsustainable. The approved plan for Block A, in which the petitioner is in occupation, provides for a basement floor plus ground floor plus mezzanine floor plus seven floors. Whereas, the building as it stands comprises a basement floor plus ground floor plus eight floors. The deviation noted is that on the first floor, the approved mezzanine floor has been converted into a first floor restaurant and does not satisfy Completion Certificate (CC) norms. That apart, other violations in Block B involve a construction of a ground floor part plus stilt floor plus eight floor plus ninth floor residential-cum-commercial building with 33 dwelling units. Inspection reveals that a ninth floor has been constructed additionally over and above the approved plan.

4.2. The impugned order is a composite order pointing out the deviations found in the entire building and Form-IV Notice on 19.02.2025, was issued for removal of the unauthor