Case Law Details

Case Name : The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai Vs Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha S. Naik & Anr. (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : First Appeal No. 424 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 03/09/2013
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts (3747) Bombay High Court (675)

The present appellant issued notice under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on the ground that  in   the  residential premises,   the   respondent­ plaintiff   is   running   a  medical dispensary without permission as such should discontinue the  said unauthorised use i.e. medical dispensary.  The respondent plaintiff  filed a suit before the trial court challenging the said notice seeking  relief of declaration that the act of defendant No.1 objecting the use of  the part of the premises for running medical dispensary is illegal, null and void and also sought injunction restraining the defendant from  executing  the  same.    The  trial  court  decreed  the  suit.    Aggrieved  thereby, the present appeal.

Mrs. Joglekar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the   plaintiff,   in   a   residential   premises,   is   running   her   medical  dispensary and the same is not permissible without prior permission.  According  to  the  learned  counsel,  though  Regulation  51(iv)  of  the  Development Control Regulations, 1991 (D. C. Regulations) permits the  incidental use of residential premises for running a medical dispensary,  still   the   same   has   to   be   after   prior   permission   of   the   appellant.  According to the learned counsel, the court below has not properly appreciated the provision in this regard.

 Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that there is no provision which   requires permission of the appellant to run a medical dispensary in a  part of the residential premises.  The plaintiff is running her medical  dispensary in one small room and the rest of the part of the room is  being used as a residential premises.  The said room is not exceeding  180 sq.ft.  Indoor patients are not admitted.

 It is not in dispute that Flat No.A­2 is the residential premise of the plaintiff (i.e. in R­1 zone).  The only dispute is about the plaintiff running her medical dispensary in one room in the said flat being used for residential purpose.   The court, on appreciation of evidence has
found that whole flat is used for residential purpose and only a small area less than 30 sq. mtr.  is being used for running medical dispensary.
It is also not the case of the corporation that plaintiffs admit any indoor patients.

Rule 51(iv) of the D.C. Regulations reads thus:

51. Purely Residential Zone (R­1 Zone) – Ancillary uses permitted :­ Apart from residential use, the following uses and specified ancillary uses to the extent of 50 per cent of the floor space  of  the  principal  use  shall  be  permitted  in  buildings, premises or plots in the purely residential zone:

(i) ………………….

(ii) ………………….

(iii) ………………….

(iv) “Professional  Offices  and  studies  of  a  resident  of  the premises and incidental to such residential use, or medical and dental practitioners dispensaries or clinics of a resident of the building with only out patient treatment facilities without any indoor work, each not occupying a floor area exceeding 30 sq.m.”

The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any provision under which the plaintiff is required to seek prior permission for running medical dispensary with only outpatient treatment facilities without any indoor work in her residential flat, more particularly, when  the   whole   flat   is   being   used   for   residential   purpose   and   medical dispensary is being run in an area less than 30 sq.mtr.

In   absence   of   any   such   provision,   requiring   permission   of Municipal Corporation for Medical Practitioner’s dispensary with only
outpatient  treatment  facility  in  an  area  of  less  than  30  sq.  mtr.  in residential  premises,  it  would  not  be  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the appellant   to   issue   such   notice.     The   court   below   has   properly considered the said aspect of the matter and has rightly decreed the suit.

In the light of the above, appeal is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives in the civil application.  Hence, the same stands dismissed.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Corporate Law

Posted Under

Category : Corporate Law (3486)
Type : Judiciary (10113)
Tags : high court judgments (4053)

4 responses to “No Municipal / BMC Permission Required For use of Part of Premises for Professional Practice”

  1. Drshenoy sr says:

    I have day care clinic in hug for last 30 years.I am only doctor running clinic.clinic occupied 3 flat of 2bhk
    Out of 4.is hon.high court has given disision in motwani case’clinic run by doctor himself is professional activities not to be treated as commercial activity.& act of bmc is null&void.so question is can bmc charge commercial property tax? Whether change of user is required?
    Dr shenoy 9819678727shenoydoctor&gmail.com

  2. g.balakrishnan says:

    my post is no duplicate if you read the contents if you really know what is a duplicate comment, what poor english knowledge today in India!

  3. g.balakrishnan says:

    In your flat owned by you you have all rights under fundamental rights under under Art 301 after Art 31 abridged by the so called governments. After all from the ancient days, and British too continued when so under your great regional planning also there is no restriction whatsoever except under immoral trafficking but in those days Concubines lived without any restrictions as they were also respected community since they had live in relations now legalized.
    Even Gujarat has concubines are legally recognized since quite long even before passing of living in relationship Act.

    here medical facilities are needed today everywhere and even restriction of medical clinics is indeed a boon and in fact government need to give concessional property tax to such medical professions as their service to community is indeed a great service by medical professionals; further today government cannot provide proper full time jobs for medical professionals though they are far less in number to serve the community;
    further one need to realize CIDCO allowed consultancies in the flat allotted in New Bombay/mumbai, when so what is the great idea of municipality .

    Honorable HC rightly removed the municipal corporations cannot interfere in the flats or rooms running a clinic in part of the room say 50% of the area can be used for consulting work, even Advocates/mgmt consultants etc like CAs/CWAs;

    it is time for courts to use doctrine of severability to strike down if there are such statutes any where restricting consultancies, like even in rental , leave and license premises, that way social purposes can be served without restriction, yes control sanitation meaningfully but if municipality fails in public health duties municipalities need to be fined in exemplary manner as public health is vital, municipalities were founded to maintain public health sanitation but today no municipality duly attends public health related sanitation besides roads as almost all roads are with pot holes and a lot of citizens besides disabled and senior citizens are killed by speeding vehicles on such unlivable roads.
    courts need to be harsh on municipalities is my view, had i been a high court judge i would have fined municipalities in a most exemplary way to protect the rights under Art 19(1)(a) r/w Art 21 r/w Art 38 r/w 39 r/w Art 14.

  4. adv. dr.g.balakrishnan says:

    CORRECT DECISION BY HON HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. BESIDES ONE NEED TO NOTE JOB CREATION IS BY ONE’S OWN SELF AND GOVERNMENT DID GIVE ANY REASONABLE JOBS WHEN SO EVEN REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACTS CANNOT INTRODUCE ANY RESTRICTION IN FUTURE TOO, AFTER ALL ONE SPENDS FORTUNE IN SOME PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND IF YOU CLAMP HIM OR HER BY SO CALLED REGULATIONS YOU ARE GAGGING THE PERSON TO DEATH. ART 19(1)(A) R/W ART 21 ASSURES ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. SEE HOW DR B R AMBEDKAR DID INTRODUCE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS LIKE A MAGNA CARTA OR BILL OF RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AS HE FEARED THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ONE DAY GAG THE VERY VOTERS BY GOVERNMENT SO CALLED REGULATIONS…HON CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS NEED TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEWS… ANY ONE BADLY AFFECTED BY GOVERNMENT CAN FILE WRITS UNDER ART 226 AS IT IS A SWEEPING ARTICLE EVEN BETTER THAN ART 32!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *