JUDGMENT
A.A. Cazi, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against three permissions/licences (Exs. “T-1”, “T-2”, and “T-3”) issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and 9 and 9-A to run the eating house “Revival” which is on the upper floors of a building at Chowpatty Seaface, Bombay 400 007.
2. Respondent Nos. 7,8 and 8-A are owners of “Revival”. The petitioners are the owners or occupants of various premises in the neighbourhood of “Revival”. A grievance had been made about liquor being served or proposed to be served in “Revival”, but now it is clarified by the Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 4-A, 6 and 9 that the permission under the Prohibited Act has not been granted and, therefore, this question does not arise. Exhibit ‘T-1’ is the permission issued under section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act by the concerned authorities of the Bombay Municipal Corporation for running an eating house, Exhibit ‘T-2’ is the receipt issued under the Shops and Establishments Act, and Exhibit ‘T-3’ is the permission/licence issued by the Police Department for the purpose of running an eating house.
3. Allegations regarding harassment, nuisance, etc. are made but these cannot be dealt with in a writ petition.
4. What is urged as the main violation of the rules while granting the abovesaid permission/licences is the alleged violation of Rule M-2.3 of Appendix M of the (Draft) Building Byelaws and Development Control Rules. Now, Rule M-2.3 is regarding uses to be permitted in independent premises/buildings. The owners of “Revival”” obtained permission under item (vii) mentioned in Rule M-2.3. This has not been challenged in the petition and therefore, we cannot consider violation of the said Rule M-2.3 in this writ petition. Even otherwise, I do not see much substance there because what is permitted under Rule M-2.3 item (vii) is “Boarding and lodging houses residential hotels with special written permission of the Municipal commissioner”. It is urged that his rule relates to a “boarding and lodging house” and not to a “boarding house” simpliciter. In support of this argument my attention was drawn to Rule M-2.2.1 item (xiii). Reference is made in that rule to restaurants, eating houses, cafeterias, etc. and a restriction is laid down that the area should not exceed 100 sq. mtrs. The argument is that if a boarding house is permitted under Rule M-2.3 where no restriction is laid down then there will be no rational in Rule M-2.2.1 item (xiii) fixing a limit of 100 sq. mtrs. of area for an eating house. Now, this argument can be met by pointing that Rule M-2.2.1 is part of Rule M-2.2 which refers to the uses of the ground floors of the building. Rule M-2.3 is with respect to the upper floors of the buildings.
5. Mr. D.H. Mehta, learned Counsel for the owners of “Revival”, drew my attention to letter dated 5th March, 1991 written by respondent No. 7 to petitioner No. 1 for permission to fix temporary meter and main switch in first petitioner’s meter box through the service line in the property of the first petitioner and it is mentioned there “As you are well aware that I would like to start my restaurant before the end of May”. “A reply to this was given by the first petitioner by his letter dated 4th April, 1991 granting permission.
6. After hearing all the Counsel and after hearing the petitioner’s Counsel twice over, then the petitioners’ Counsel rose for the third time and tendered a draft amendment seeking permission to amend the prayer clauses of the petition. This being too late, I have rejected the amendment. The draft amendment is marked ‘X’.
7. Considering all the circumstances the petition requires to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed summarily.