1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 981 OF 2009 Unique Garden Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioners. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty a/w. Rita K. Joshi & Mr.Harijeevan D. Shetty for Petitioners. Ms.S.A.Module for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr.S.B.Prabhawalkar for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. Ms.Rashmi Manne for Respondent No.8. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 3, 2010. P.C. 1. Petitioners approached this Court contending that Respondent No.6 in an area which was falling under R-1 zone, was granted permission under regulation 52(7) for running restaurant in the premises, which were earlier described as office. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated January 20, 2010, reply has been filed by Mr. Sunil Patil of the Respondent No.1 pointing out that the plot in fact is falling in R-2 zone. In R-2 zone it is permissible to have a restaurant and eating 2 house. The corporation has duly granted the approval. This contention therefore as urged on behalf of the Petitioners does not subsist. 2. It was then contended based on the Judgments in Ravindra Mutenja & ors. v/s. Bhavan Corporation & Ors.[2003(5) Bom.C.R. 695] and M/s. Noopur Developers V/s. Himanshu V. Ganatra & Ors. dated 14/1/2010 in Appeal from Order No.1195 of 2009 with Civil Application No. 1495 of 2009 that the permission of the occupiers were required in the event, the use of the premises was to be altered from office premises to restaurant. On perusing the ratio of the two Judgments, we find that that was in issue in the said Judgments, was the grant of additional FSI and putting up additional construction. On facts, these judgments are clearly inapplicable. 3. It is then submitted that with respect of the stilt, permission of the owner was also required. As already explained earlier, if the area which was earlier granted approval for use as office premises, subsequent change for restaurant permission was not required. 4. Then it was contended that there was less parking area. That is an issue which can be agitated later on. For factum to provide of parking, the entire 3 building to use for hotel not to be in terms of the Regulation and the Respondent No.6 alone cannot be subjected to any adverse action on that count. 5. Last submission canvassed is that Respondent No.6 was occupying open area. If that be so, it is open for the Petitioner to complain to Respondent No.1 Corporation and the Corporation will be free to take action in accordance with law, if there is substance in the complaint. 5. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercising our extraordinary jurisdiction. Consequently Petition is dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)