M/s Greams Dugar Flat Owners Association vs S.Sudhakar

CS No. 286 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 19.08.2026
Pronounced on 30.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
CS No. 286 of 2020
M/s Greams Dugar Flat
Owners Association
Represented by its Secretary,
at No.149, Greams Road,
th
Greams Dugar bldg. 4 Floor,
Chennai – 600 006.
..Plaintiff(s)
Vs
1. S.Sudhakar,
S/o. T.M.K. Selvaraj
2. S.Dhinakar
S/o. T.M.K. Selvaraj
Residing at
No.48/84, M.C.Road,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai – 600 021.
3. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008.
4. The Commissioner.
The Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building. Chennai – 600 003.
5. The Director,
Tamil Nadu Fire and Rescue Services,
No.17, Rukmani Lakshmpathy Salai,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
__________Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
..Defendant(s)
CS No. 286 of 2020
Prayer: plaint is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of this Court Original Side Rules
read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, for the following reliefs:
(a) For a declaration that all the floors including the 6th and 7th floor of
the property at Old No.149, and New No.64, Greams Dugar at Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006 morefully described in the schedule are commercial units to
be used for office purpose only as per approved plan and constriction
agreement.
(b) Granting a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
1st and 2nd defendants or their men or successor in interest or anyone claiming
through them or their agent from converting the 6th and 7th floor of the
property at Old No.149 and New No.64, Greams Dugar at Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006 morefully described in the Schedule mentioned into a
boarding or lodging or service apartment and any other purpose other than
office purpose.
For Plaintiff(s): M/s.K.V Ananthakrushnan
For Defendant(s): Mr.M.Devaraj
for D1 & D2
Mr.P.Veena Suresh,
Standing Counsel for D3
Ms.P.T.Ramadevi for D4
Ms.Zeenath Begum, Govt. Advocate for D5
__________Page 2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
Judgment
This suit has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) For a declaration that all the floors including the 6th and 7th floor of
the property at Old No.149, and New No.64, Greams Dugar at Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006 morefully described in the schedule are commercial units to
be used for office purpose only as per approved plan and constriction
agreement.
(b) Granting a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
1st and 2nd defendants or their men or successor in interest or anyone claiming
through them or their agent from converting the 6th and 7th floor of the
property at Old No.149 and New No.64, Greams Dugar at Greams Road,
Chennai – 600 006 morefully described in the Schedule mentioned into a
boarding or lodging or service apartment and any other purpose other than
office purpose.
2.The Case of plaintiff in brief:
th
According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 & 2, after purchasing the 6
th
and 7 floors, commenced substantial alteration and renovation with the
intention of converting the premises into service Apartment. The plaintiff
contends that the proposed conversion is not merely an internal renovation but a
change in the nature and mode of user of the premises. It is specifically pleaded
__________Page 3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
that the proposed service Apartments would contain a large number of rooms,
each having attached toilet and kitchen facilities, thereby substantially
increasing the occupancy, consumption of water, discharge of sewage and
drainage, use of lifts and other common facilities. It is further pleaded that the
conversion would have consequences relating to fire safety and other statutory
requirements.
2.1.The plaintiff also relies upon the construction agreement and the
covenants contained in the sale deeds and contends that the premises were
intended for Commercial Office use and not for boarding, lodging or service
apartment use. The plaintiff further relies upon the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994 and the Bye-laws of the Association. It
is contended that the defendants 1 & 2, being Apartment owners and members
of the Association, are bound by the said statutory provisions, Bye-laws and
lawful decisions of the Association.
th th
2.2.The defendants 1 & 2 admit their ownership over the 6 and 7
th
Floors, contends that they purchased an extent of 4492 sq. ft. in the 6 floor and
th
3209 sq. ft., in the 7 floor, together with the rights mentioned in the respective
sale deeds. Their principal contention is that the sale deeds confer upon them
the right to use, and enjoy their property for commercial purposes. According to
__________Page 4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
them, there is no prohibition against using the premises for service Apartments,
which according to them is also a commercial activity. It is their further case
that they have not carried out any structural alteration. According to them, the
works undertaken were confined to internal partitions with light materials,
replacement of worn-out sanitary fittings, replacement of tiles and other
renovation and repair works. They deny having demolished any portion of the
building or weakened the structure. They contend that no additional water or
drainage burden would be caused and that the existing lift facility is sufficient.
3.It is further contented that the plaintiff association was constituted only
subsequently and that defendants 1 & 2 have been prevented by the other
Apartment owners from beneficially enjoying their property. They also dispute
the locus of the Treasurer, who gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.
4.This Court, on 15.11.2021, framed the following issues for trial.
(1) Is not the suit property a commercial unit to be used only for office purpose
as per approved plan and construction agreement?
th th
(2) Whether altering and converting the 6 and 7 floor as service apartment
will not weaken the entire structure of the building?
th
(3) Is not permission necessary from defendants 3 to 5 for conversion of 6 and
th
7 floor by defendants 1 and 2 as service apartments?
__________Page 5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
(4) Are not defendants 1 and 2, the co-owners and members of the plaintiff
Association bound and governed by bye-laws of the association, construction
agreement and Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act to carry out conversion
of apartment without the consent of other co-owners?
(5) Are not defendants 3 to 5 proper and necessary parties for the purpose of
adjudication of the issue?
th th
(6) Will not the conversion of 6 and 7 floor as service apartment affect the
safety, fire etc., and additional amenities including separate Lift etc., cast
burden on the Association?
th
(7) Whether the interior alteration done by the defendants 1 and 2 in the 6 and
th
7 floor of the suit property is within the Construction Agreement of beyond the
construction agreement entered into between the promoter and the purchaser
particularly schedule D of the Agreement, 11.11.1995.
(8) Whether the present repair works undertaken by the defendants 1 and 2
amounts to structural alterations affecting the buildings?
5.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1, Mrs. A.Esther Selvam, Treasurer of
the plaintiff’s Association was examined, Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. Though
defendants 1 & 2 filed a detailed written statement, they did not enter the
witness box and did not let in any oral or documentary evidence.
__________Page 6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
6.Defendants 3 to 5, who are statutory authorities remained ex-parte.
7.Issue 1 to 8 :
7.1. There can be no dispute that an apartment owner is entitled to possess
and enjoy his apartment. Such right, however, is not an absolute right divorced
from the sanctioned plan, the deed governing the Apartment, the construction
agreement, the covenants, the Bye-laws and the statutory frame work governing
Apartment ownership.
7.2.The Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994, defines an
“Apartment” to include a part of property intended for independent use for
residents, office, profession, occupation, trade or business. The same enactment
also defines “common areas and facilities” to include, among other things,
foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, main walls, roofs, Terrace, fire
escapes, water supply, sewerage and drainage connections, elevators and fire
deduction facilities. The statutory scheme therefore recognises individual
ownership of an apartment together with an undivided interest in common areas
and facilities. The enjoyment of the individual Apartment cannot consequently
be considered in isolation from the common structure and common facilities of
the building.
__________Page 7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
7.3.Section 8 of the Act, is particularly relevant. It prohibits an
Apartment owner from doing any work or putting the Apartment to any other
use which would jeoparadise the soundness or safety of the property, reduce its
value or impair an easement or hereditament. It also prohibits addition or
material structure or excavation of additional basement or cellar without the
previous unanimous consent of the other apartment owners. Thus, the right of
ownership does not confer an unrestricted right to alter the character or use of
an apartment when such alteration has consequences for the safety or common
interests of the building.
7.4.Section 13 of the Act provides that the administration of the property
shall be governed by the Bye-laws. The Bye-laws are required to contain
provisions relating to maintenance and repair of common facilities, collection of
common expenses and restrictions concerning the use and maintenance of
Apartments and common areas. Section 23 further provides that apartment
owners and persons using the property are subject to the Act, the Bye-laws and
the Rules made thereunder and that lawful agreements, decisions and
determinations made by the Society or Association in accordance with the Act
or Bye-laws are binding on the apartment owners.
__________Page 8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
8.Therefore, the contention of the defendant 1 & 2 that ownership of the
th th
6 and 7 floors gives them an unrestricted right to use the premises in any
manner they consider commercially convenient cannot be accepted. The
ownership rights are subject to the statutory and contractual regime applicable
to the apartment complex.
9.The plaintiff has specifically relied upon the construction agreement
dated 11.11.1995 and, in particular, Schedule D thereof. The question is not
whether the defendants can use their premises for a commercial purpose. They
undoubtedly have a right to use the premises in accordance with their title and
the governing documents. The real question is whether the expression
“Commercial Purpose” permits a change from the sanctioned and agreed user as
office accommodation into a boarding /lodging / service apartment facility.
10.An office premises ordinarily involved a particular pattern of
occupation and use. A service apartment, on the other hand, contemplates
residential type accommodation, repeated short term occupation, sleeping
accommodation, attached bathrooms, kitchens and substantially different
patterns of ingress and egress, water consumption, drainage, lift usage, waste
generation and fire safety requirements. Therefore, merely because both
activities may be described generally as “Commercial”, it does not follow that a
__________Page 9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
contractual covenant restricting the premises to office use becomes
meaningless.
11.The defendants have raised several factual allegations in their written
statement. However, these allegations have not been supported by oral evidence
from either defendant or by any expert evidence. The plaintiffs, on the other
hand has produced photographs as Ex.P.18 and the evidence of its Treasurer
regarding the nature of the work and the proposed conversion. There is no
evidence before this Court to show that P.W.1 examination was unauthorised or
contrary to the Bye-laws of the Association. The plaintiff has therefore
established its entitlement to the declaration and consequential injunction
sought in the suit.
12.Accordingly, the suit is decreed as prayed for.
30.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VSN
__________Page 10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )

CS No. 286 of 2020
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI J.
VSN
CS No. 286 of 2020
30.10.2026
__________Page 11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 06:28:14 pm )