UNAUTHORISED OR ILLEGAL LAYOUTS IN BMRDA JURISDICTION

THE BMRDA HAS JURISDICTION OVER 8005 Sqaure KM.

Bangalore Metropolitan Region

                         Area in  sq.kms.

                     --------------------

1.    Bangalore Urban   Dist.                                      2191.00

2.    Bangalore Rural Dist.                                          5814.00

                                                                     -------------

                                                                          8005.00  sq.kms.

                     -------------        

 B.M.A.                                                  1240.69

 B.M.I.C.A.P.A.                                        65.31    

(within BMA)                                      404.05

              B.M.I.C.A.P.A.                                        338.74

             (outside BMA  but within BMR comprising of

 Ramanagaram   Taluk               200.25

 Channapatna     Taluk               110.60

Bangalore South Taluk )             27.89

                                                             

·        Anekal LPA                                           406.00

·        Nelamangala LPA                                  750.00

·        Magadi   LPA                                        501.00

·        Hoskote LPA                                         591.00

·        Kanakapura LPA                                   879.00

·        BIAAPA   LPA                                      985.00

·        RCUDA  LPA                                         62.50

·        APZ-1    (excl.RCUDA)                        462.50

·        IZs  in B.M.R                                       1723.26     

                                                                   -----------

                                 Total                        8005.00  sq.kms.

                                                                   -----------

                    According to one of the national dailies the unauthorised layouts in this area comprising of all the above zones, might be around 2000 but 424 illegal layouts had been reported.  It is also found out, some of them are in green belt.  Most of them have village panchayat katha and had been issued as GRAMATHANA SITES. 

ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED LAYOUTS IN BMRDA JURISDICTION

BMRDA HAS IDENTIFIED AND HAVE INITIATED ACTION AGAINST 424 ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORISED LAYOUTS IN ITS JURISDICTION IN ANEKAL, MAGADI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, NELAMANGALA ,HOSKOTE, DEVANAHALLY AND MYSORE ROAD AREAS.

IT IS RELIABLY LEARNT THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS APPROACHED THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL SUB-REGISTRARS FOR DETAILS AND APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFENDERS IN SOME CASES.

Sale Agreement and the Advance paid or earnest money deposited and the latest supreme court judgment on the forfeiture of the deposit/advance

Forfeiture of advance/earnest money deposit

 

Satish Batra Vs. Sudhir Rawal

[Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4605 of 2012]

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question that has come up for consideration in this appeal is whether the seller is entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposit where the sale of an immovable property falls through by reason of the fault or failure of the purchaser.

3. An Agreement for Sale of property bearing No. 14/11, 2nd Floor, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was entered into between the appellant (Seller) and the respondent (Purchaser) on 29.11.2005 for a total consideration ofRs.70,00,000/- to be paid on or before 5.3.2006 and, towards earnest money, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid on 29.11.2005 and another Rs.3,00,000/-on 30.11.2005, that means, altogether Rs.7,00,000/- was paid, being 10% of the total sale consideration. The purchaser, however, could not pay the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/- before 5.3.2006, consequently, the sale deed could not be executed. Seller, therefore, did not return the earnest money to the purchaser.

4. Consequently, the purchaser, as plaintiff, instituted a suit No.764/08/06 before the Additional District Judge, Delhi for recovery ofRs.7,00,000/- from the seller-defendant of the earnest money paid by him. Defendant contested the suit stating that, as per the agreement, he is entitled to forfeit the amount of earnest money, if there was a failure on the part of the purchaser-plaintiff in paying the balance amount ofRs.63,00,000/-.

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant is entitled to retain the amount of earnest money since the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.63,00,000/- before 5.3.2006.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the High Court of Delhi by filing R.F.A. No. 137 of 2010. The High Court, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Dass AIR 1963 SC 1405,took the view that the seller is entitled to forfeit only a nominal amount and not the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. The High Court further held that the seller can forfeit an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and he is bound to refund the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/-to the purchaser. To this extent, a decree was also passed in favour of purchaser against the seller. It was also held that the purchaser is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from 29.11.2005 till the amount is paid.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the seller has come up with this appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel on either side at length. Facts are undisputed. The only question is whether the seller is entitled to retain the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/- received towards earnest money or not. The fact that the purchaser was at fault in not paying the balance consideration of Rs.63,00,000/- is also not disputed. The question whether the seller can retain the entire amount of earnest money depends upon the terms of the agreement. Relevant clause of the Agreement for Sale dated 29.11.2005 is extracted hereunder for easy reference:

"e) If the prospective purchaser fail to fulfill the above condition. The transaction shall stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited. In case I fail to complete the transaction as stipulated above. The purchaser will get the DOUBLE amount of the earnest money. In the both condition, DEALER will get 4% Commission from the faulty party."The clause, therefore, stipulates that if the purchaser fails to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the agreement, the transaction shall stand cancelled and earnest money will be forfeited. On the other hand, if the seller fails to complete the transaction, the purchaser would get double the amount of earnest money. Indisputably the purchaser failed to perform his part of the contract, then the question is whether the seller can forfeit the entire earnest money.

9. The question raised is no more res integra. In (Kunwar) Chiranjit Singh v. Har Swarup AIR 1926 P.C. 1, it has been held that the earnest money is part of the purchase price when the transaction goes forward and it is forfeited when the transaction falls through, by reason of the fault or failure of the purchaser. In Fateh Chand (supra), this Court was interpreting the conditions of an agreement dated 21.3.1949. By that agreement, the plaintiff contracted to sell his rights in the land and the building to Seth Fateh Chand (defendant). It was recited in the agreement that the plaintiff agreed to sell the building together with 'pattadari' rights appertaining to the land admeasuring 2433 sq. yards for Rs.1,12,500/- and that Rs.1,000/- was paid to him as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement. The conditions of the agreement were as follows:

1. "I, the executant, shall deliver the actual possession, i.e. complete vacant possession of kothi (bungalow) to the vendee on the 30th March, 1949, and the vendee shall have to give another cheque for Rs. 24,000/- to me, out of the sale price.

2. Then the vendee shall have to get the sale (deed) registered by the 1st of June, 1949. If, on account of any reason, the vendee fails to get the said sale-deed registered by June, 1949, then this sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) mentioned above shall be deemed to be forfeited and the agreement cancelled. Moreover, the vendee shall have to deliver back the complete vacant possession of the kothi (bungalow) to me, the executants.

If due to certain reason, any delay takes place on my part in the registration of the sale-deed, by the 1st June 1949, then I, the executant, shall be liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damages, apart from the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the vendee, and the bargain shall be deemed to be cancelled."Plaintiff, on 25.3.1949, received Rs.24,000/- and delivered possession of the building and the land in his occupation to the defendant.

10. Alleging that the agreement was rescinded because the defendant committed default in performing the agreement and the sum of Rs.25,000/-paid by the defendant stood forfeited. Plaintiff instituted a suit. The defendant resisted the claim contending inter alia that the plaintiff having committed breach of the contract could not forfeit the amount ofRs.25,000/- received by him. The matter ultimately came to this Court. This Court considered as to whether the plaintiff could forfeit the amount. Noticing that the defendant had conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to forfeit the amount which was paid as earnest money, the Court held as follows:

"(16) The contract provided for forfeiture of Rs. 25,000/- consisting of Rs. 1000/-paid as earnest money and Rs. 24,000/- paid as part of the purchase price. The defendant has conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to forfeit the amount of Rs. 1,000/- which was paid as earnest money. We cannot however agree with the High Court that 10 per cent of the price may be regarded as reasonable compensation in relation to the value of the contract as a whole, as that in our opinion is assessed on arbitrary assumption. The plaintiff failed to prove the loss suffered by him in consequence of the breach of the contract committed by the defendant, and we are unable to find any principle on which compensation equal to ten percent of the agreed price could be awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has been allowed Rs. 1,000/-which was the earnest money as part of the damages. Besides he had use of the remaining sum of Rs. 24,000/-, and we can rightly presume that he must have been deriving advantage from that amount throughout this period. In the absence therefore of any proof of damage arising from the breach of the contract we are of opinion that the amount of Rs. 1,000/- (earnest money) which has been forfeited, and the advantage that the plaintiff must have derived from the possession of the remaining sum of Rs. 24,000/-during all this period would be sufficient compensation to him. It may be added that the plaintiff has separately claimed mesne profits for being kept out of possession for which he has got a decree and therefore the fact that the plaintiff was out of possession cannot be taken into account in determining damages for this purpose.' The decree passed by the High Court awarding Rs. 11,250/- as damages to the plaintiff must therefore be set aside.

11. "We are of the view that the High Court has completely misunderstood the dictum laid down in the above mentioned judgment and came to a wrong conclusion of law for more than one reason, which will be more evident when we scan through the subsequent judgments of this Court.

12. In Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills and Others v. Tata Air Craft Limited1969 (3) SCC 522, this Court elaborately discussed the principles which emerged from the expression "earnest money". That was a case where the appellant therein entered into a contract with the respondent for purchase of aero scrap.

According to the contract, the buyer had to deposit with the company 25% of the total amount and that deposit was to remain with the company as the earnest money to be adjusted in the final bills. Buyer was bound to pay the full value less the deposit before taking delivery of the stores. In case of default by the buyer, the company was entitled to forfeit unconditionally the earnest money paid by the buyer and cancel the contract. The appellant advanced a sum of Rs.25,000/- (being 25% of the total amount) agreeing to pay the balance in two installments. On appellant's failure to pay any further amount, respondent forfeited the sum of Rs.25,000/-, which according to it, was earnest money and cancelled the contract.

Appellant filed a suit for recovery of the said amount. The trial Court held that the sum was paid by way of deposit or earnest money which was primarily a security for the performance of the contract and that the respondent was entitled to forfeit the deposit amount when the appellant committed a breach of the contract and dismissed the suit. The High Court confirmed the decision taken by the trial Court. This Court, considering the scope of the term "earnest", laid down certain principles, which are as follows:

"21. From a review of the decisions cited above, the following principles emerge regarding "earnest""

1. It must be given at the moment at which the contract is concluded.

2. It represents a guarantee that the contract will be fulfilled or, in other words, "earnest" is given to bind the contract.

3. It is part of the purchase price when the transaction is carried out.

4. It is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser.

5. Unless there is anything to the contrary in the terms of the contract, on default committed by the buyer, the seller is entitled to forfeit the earnest.

13. "In Delhi Development Authority v. Grihstrapana Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. 1995 Supp (1) SCC 751, this Court following thejudgment of the Privy Council in Har Swaroop and Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills(supra), held that the forfeiture of the earnest money was legal.

14. In V. Lakshmanan v. B.R. Mangalgiri and others (1995) Suppl. (2) SCC33, this Court held as follows: "The question then is whether the respondents are entitled to forfeit the entire amount. It is seen that a specific covenant under the contract was that respondents are entitled to forfeit the money paid under the contract. So when the contract fell through by the default committed by the appellant, as part of the contract, they are entitled to forfeit the entire amount.

15. "In Housing Urban Development Authority and another v. Kewal Krishan Goel and others (1996) 4 SCC 249, the question that came up for consideration before this Court was, where a land is allotted, the allottee deposited some installments but thereafter intimated the authority about his incapacity to pay up the balance installments and requested for refund of the money paid, was the allotting authority entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the allottee or could be only entitled to forfeit 10% of the total amount deposited by the allottee till the request is made? Following the judgment in Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills (supra),this Court held that the allottee having accepted the allotment and having made some payment on installments basis, then made a request to surrender the land, has committed default on his part and, therefore, the competent authority would be fully justified in forfeiting the earnest money which had been deposited and not the 10% of the amount deposited, as held by the High Court. In that case, this Court took the view that the earnest money represented the guarantee that the contract would be fulfilled.

16. This Court, again, in Videocon Properties Ltd. v. Dr. Bhalchandra Laboratories and others (2004) 3 SCC 711, dealt with a case of sale of immovable property. It was a case where the plaintiff-appellants had entered into an agreement with the respondents-defendants on 13.5.1994 to sell the landed property owned by the respondents and a sum of Rs.38,00,000/- was paid by the appellants as deposit or earnest money on the execution of the agreement. In that case, this Court examined the nature and character of the earnest money deposit and took the view that the words used in the agreement alone would not be determinative of the character of the "earnest money" but really the intention of the parties and surrounding circumstances. The Court held that the earnest money serves two purposes of being part-payment of the purchase money and security for the performance of the contract by the party concerned. In that case, on facts, after interpreting various clauses of the agreement, the Court held as follows: "15. Coming to the facts of the case, it is seen from the agreement dated 13.5.1994 entered into between parties - particularly Clause 1, which specifies more than one enumerated categories of payment to be made by the purchaser in the manner and at stages indicated therein, as consideration for the ultimate sale to be made and completed.

The further fact that the sum of Rs. 38 lakhs had to be paid on the date of execution of the agreement itself, with the other remaining categories of sums being stipulated for payment at different and subsequent stages as well as execution of the sale deed by the Vendors taken together with the contents of the stipulation made in Clause 2.3, providing for the return of it, if for any reason the Vendors fail to fulfill their obligations under Clause 2, strongly supports and strengthens the claim of the appellants that the intention of the parties in the case on hand is in effect to treat the sum of Rs. 38 lakhs to be part of the prepaid purchase-money and not pure and simple earnest money deposit of the restricted sense and tenor, wholly unrelated to the purchase price as such in any manner.

The mention made in the agreement or description of the same otherwise as "deposit or earnest money" and not merely as earnest money, inevitably leads to the inescapable conclusion that the same has to and was really meant to serve both purposes as envisaged in the decision noticed supra. In substance, it is, therefore, really a deposit or payment of advance as well and for that matter actually part payment of purchase price, only. In the teeth of the further fact situation that the sale could not be completed by execution of the sale deed in this case only due to lapses and inabilities on the part of the respondents - irrespective of bonafides or otherwise involved in such delay and lapses, the amount of rupees 33 lakhs becomes refundable by the Vendors to the purchasers as of the prepaid purchase price deposited with the Vendors.

Consequently, the sum of rupees 38 lakhs to be refunded would attract the first limb or part of Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act itself and therefore necessarily, as held by the learned Single Judge, the defendants prima facie became liable to refund the same with interest due thereon, in terms of Clause 2.3 of the agreement Therefore, the statutory charge envisaged therein would get attracted to and encompass the whole of the sum of rupees 38 lakhs and the interest due thereon. "In the above mentioned case, the Court also held as follows: "14. Further, it is not the description by words used in the agreement only that would be determinative of the character of the sum but really the intention of parties and surrounding circumstances as well, that have to be baked into and what may be called an advance may really be a deposit or earnest money and what is termed as 'a deposit or earnest money' may ultimately turn out to be really an advance or part of purchase price. Earnest money or deposit also, thus, serves two purposes of being part payment of the purchase money and security for the performances of the contract by the party concerned, which paid it

17. "Law is, therefore, clear that to justify the forfeiture of advance money being part of 'earnest money' the terms of the contract should be clear and explicit. Earnest money is paid or given at the time when the contract is entered into and, as a pledge for its due performance by the depositor to be forfeited in case of non-performance, by the depositor. There can be converse situation also that if the seller fails to perform the contract the purchaser can also get the double the amount, if it is so stipulated. It is also the law that part payment of purchase price cannot be forfeited unless it is a guarantee for the due performance of the contract. In other words, if the payment is made only towards part payment of consideration and not intended as earnest money then the forfeiture clause will not apply.

18. When we examine the clauses in the instant case, it is amply clear that the clause extracted hereinabove was included in the contract at the moment at which the contract was entered into. It represents the guarantee that the contract would be fulfilled. In other words, 'earnest' is given to bind the contract, which is a part of the purchase price when the transaction is carried out and it will be forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the default or failure of the purchaser. There is no other clause militates against the clauses extracted in the agreement dated 29.11.2011.

19. We are, therefore, of the view that the seller was justified in forfeiting the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as per the relevant clause, since the earnest money was primarily a security for the due performance of the agreement and, consequently, the seller is entitled to forfeit the entire deposit. The High Court has, therefore, committed an error in reversing the judgment of the trial court.20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

............................J. (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

............................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi,

BETTERMENT CHARGES

THE BBMP TAXATION SUB COMMITTEE HAS SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE UNIFORM COLLECTION OF BETTERMENT LEVY IN THE NEWLY AMALGAMATED AREAS/ZONES OF BBMP AND HAS RECOMMENDED RS560/- PER SQUARE METER AS BETTERMENT CHARGES.

DC CONVERTED SITES AND PAYMENT OF BETTERMENT CHARGES TO BBMP WILL RESUME SOON

THE BBMP HAD DISCONTINUED/STOPPED THE COLLECTION OF BETTERMENT/IMPROVEMENT CHARGES IN THE WAKE OF HIGH COURT ORDER, FEW MONTHS AGO.

THE BBMP WILL LEVY UNIFORM IMPROVEMENT/BETTERMENT CHARGES ON DC CONVERTED SITES IN BBMP AREAS, FOLLOWING A REPRIMAND BY THE HIGH COURT FOR CHARGING DIFFERENCIAL RATES FOR SITES OF VARYING DIMENSION.  THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON TAXATION AND FINANCE WILL MEET AND SUGGEST A UNIFORM SLAB FOR ALL DC CONVERTED SITES OF VARIYING DIMENSION AND THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE PLACED BEFORE THE BBMP COUNCIL BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.

THE BBMP WILL RESUME THE COLLECTION (MONEY) SOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FROM DC CONVERTED SITE OWNERS!!!!!

FRAUDULENT CALLS

Fraudulent Calls

Some complaints have been received from a few mobile customers that they had received missed calls from certain telephone numbers or received calls/messages relating to winning of lottery etc. and that on calling back these numbers they were charged substantially. 

On verification of these complaints, the telephone numbers from where the missed calls and other mischievous calls/messages had come were found to be international numbers. In many cases such numbers relate to premium rate services for which higher charges apply. 

To address the problem of missed calls and other mischievous calls/messages coming from International locations prompting mobile customers to respond, TRAI has instructed the Access Service Providers to warn the customers about such calls and messages and to take other effective measures for addressing the problem.

GOLD SHINES AS EVER!!!!!!!!!!!! And Realty prices hit the peak!!!!!

THE GOLD PRICE PER GRAM REACHED RS2975/-   over the weekend and the average assets under management, for gold exchange traded funds, doubled to Rs 9,620 crore for the year ended March 2012, according to Sebi data. Investors either saw value of their investment fall in equity funds or pulled money out of them during the same period and invested in Gold (ETF) and Real estate.

There has been a sudden jump in the realty prices, in and around Bangalore in the last two years and the appreciation is in the range of 20% to 60% in the vacant land or plots with clear titles and 10% to 30% in the apartment sector and there has been a consistent demand for the residentially/commercially converted land.  Villas are by far the most sought after and the designer enclaves are the latest fad and fab. 

DEVIATIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN IN BANGALORE - WHOM TO COMPLAIN ???

STANDARAD PROCEDURE FOR INVESTIGATING CITIZENS COMPLAINTS AGAINST VIOLATION OF BUILDING BYE –LAWS AND COMPLAINTS AGAINST OCCUPYING THE BUILDING WITHOUT OBTAINING OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE.

To make BBMP more people friendly as well as to have more effective enforcement towards Building Bye-laws violations and to make investigation of these complaint more transparent, the following standard procedure for investigating citizens complaints against violation of Building Bye-laws is framed.

1. Citizens can lodge their complaints against violation of building bye-laws in any One of the following offices -

Office To Whom to Address

i) BBMP Citizen Service Centers - A.R.O.

ii) BBMP Headquarters Office - Commissioner

iii) Zonal Offices – Joint Commissioner

iv) J.D.T.P. Office- J.D.T.P.

v) Zonal Chief Engineer Office – Chief Engineer

vi) Divisional Executive Engineer Office- Executive Engineer

vii) Sub-division Office- Asst. Executive Engineer

2. All the above BBMP offices will designate one officer / staff from their establishment to receive these complaints from the citizens.

3. The Complainant shall furnish an affidavit supporting allegations made by him against violation of building byelaws, the name and address of the violator, the

location of the building, any additional information if any.

4. Complaints without proper details will not be accepted or enquired into.

5. In each of the complaint receiving office a separate register shall be maintained exclusively for registering these complaints.

6. The concerned receiving office shall enter the details in the complaint register as soon as he receives the complaint. Date and time of receipt of the complaint will

be stamped on each at the complaint so received.

7. All complaints received in any of the above officers shall be sent to the concerned jurisdictional AEE for necessary action.

8. The concerned AEE shall inspect the building to ascertain whether there are any deviations / violations from the sanctioned plan or building bye laws as stated in

the complaint.

9. If the AEE notices any deviations/violations, he shall mention these in his inspection report specifically along with measurements and digital photos supporting the status of the violation as on that particular day. Further he should prepare a record of inspection. (mahazar) along with signatures of the witnesses.

10. The AEE should mark the deviated / violated portions on the sanctioned plan including use of the building fully or partly. (For eg:- conversion of parking space (cellar) into commercial purposes, and also conversion of residential to commercial use without obtaining change of land use from BDA), and issue notice under the relevant sections of the KMC Act 1976 and Building Bye-laws of the BBMP to the

owner/licensee of the building.

11. If the owner of the building does not set right the deviated /violated portions of the building within the prescribed time limit, or if the owner or builder fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the authority the authority may take further necessary action under the relevant sections of the KMC Act 1976 and Building Bye-laws of the BBMP.

12. In case of complaints against occupying the buildings without obtaining Occupancy Certificate as required under KMC Act, 1976 and Building Bye-laws of the BBMP, the Asst. Executive Engineer with his remarks will forward the same immediately to the JDTP office for taking further necessary action.

13. The AEE shall take all precautionary measures including filing of caveat to ensure that the orders under KMC Act 1976 and Building Bye-laws of the BBMP are

Executed in time.

14. A compliance report shall be submitted by the AEE to the Zonal Chief Engineers and to the office from where the complaint is sent and also a reply shall be sent to the complainant by certificate of posting immediately about the action taken.

15. Zonal Chief Engineers will maintain in their office status of all such complaints received in various AEE offices in the zone. Every month they will review at least

Once all such cases and will ensure that all pending cases are enquired into without delay.

16. The AEE should enter in the complaint register about the compliance of the complaint and then only close the issue.

17. The concerned officer in which office the complaint was originally received shall satisfy himself of proper action taken and shall enter about the compliance in the complaint register and close the case.

18. In case of those complaints which are regarding the buildings which are occupied without obtaining Occupancy Certificate, in the J.D.T.P. Office at the Head Quarters, a separate register shall be maintained for registering these complaints.

19. In those cases of complaints against occupying the building without obtaining Occupancy Certificate directly being received at JDTP office, they will be directly attended by the office of the JDTP and will not be sent to the jurisdiction AEE. In all other cases complaints being received at other offices, shall go through jurisdictional AEE for enquiry who with his remarks shall send the same to the office of JDTP for further necessary action.

20. The JDTP / the Delegated Authority shall inspect the building to ascertain whether the building is occupied without obtaining the necessary Occupancy Certificate, as

per relevant Section of the KMC Act 1976 and also BMP Building Bye-laws.

21. Occupancy Certificate is required as per present regulations for buildings with Ground + two upper floors and having 5 units and above in case of residential

Buildings. In case of non-residential buildings more than 300 sqms of built up area and all buildings which are having Ground + three and more upper floors.

22. If the J.D.T.P. / the Delegated Authority confirms that the building is occupied without obtaining Occupancy Certificate he shall serve a notice to the owner of the

building/licensee intimating about the requirement of law for obtaining Occupancy Certificate. The building without Occupancy Certificate will be required to be vacated by the owner / licence till Occupancy Certificate is obtained.

23. If, in spite of service of notice the person concerned does not vacate and apply for Occupancy Certificate within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, then action as under relevant sections of the KMC Act and BBMP Building Bye-laws will be initiated.

24. Further all the buildings which are occupied without taking Occupancy Certificate will be treated as dangerous structures within the preview of relevant Section of the

KMC Act 1976 and Building Bye-laws of the BBMP.

25. Until and unless the owner of the building obtains Occupancy Certificate from the BBMP the owner of the building shall not occupy or allow any other person to

occupy the building or a part of the building for any purpose whatsoever.

26. All the compliance in those cases of complaints against occupying the buildings without obtaining Occupancy Certificate will be maintained by the office of JDTP.