Madras HC Bars Two Owners From Turning Greams Road Office Floors Into Service Apartments, Citing Construction Agreement’s Office-Use Term

In brief

The question

Whether the sixth and seventh floors were restricted to office use under the sanctioned plan and governing construction agreement, and could therefore be converted into service apartments.

The court held

The Court held that the defendants’ ownership rights were subject to the statutory and contractual regime governing the apartment complex, and that the plaintiff had established its entitlement to the relief sought.

It also directed

It decreed the suit as prayed, declaring the floors, including the sixth and seventh floors, to be commercial units for office use and granting a permanent injunction restraining conversion of the sixth and seventh floors into boarding, lodging or service apartments, or use for any purpose other than office use.

01Facts

The plaintiff Association sued the owners of the building’s sixth and seventh floors, alleging that they were renovating those floors to operate as service apartments, contrary to the approved and agreed office use.

pp. 3–6, 11

The plaintiff’s Treasurer testified and photographs were marked; the defendants did not give evidence, and the statutory-authority defendants remained ex parte.

pp. 3–6, 11

The suit sought a declaration that the floors were for office use and an injunction against their conversion to service apartments.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the sixth and seventh floors were restricted to office use under the sanctioned plan and governing construction agreement, and could therefore be converted into service apartments.

pp. 5, 9–10

ii.Whether the defendants’ ownership and asserted right to commercial use were subject to the Act, the Association’s bye-laws and the building’s governing documents.

pp. 7–9

iii.Whether the proposed service-apartment use and associated works could affect the building’s safety or common facilities, and whether the defendants had established that the works were merely non-structural repairs.

pp. 5–6, 10–11

03Law Applied

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994. It relied on Section 8, under which an apartment owner may not undertake work or use an apartment in a manner that jeopardises the property’s soundness or safety, reduces its value, or impairs an easement or hereditament; the section also restricts specified structural additions without the required consent.

p. 8

Sections 13 and 23 make the administration of the property subject to bye-laws and provide that apartment owners and users are bound by the Act, the bye-laws and lawful decisions made under them.

p. 8

The Court also treated the sanctioned plan, construction agreement and applicable covenants as constraints on the use of an apartment; ownership does not confer an unrestricted right to change its agreed or sanctioned use.

pp. 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 1994. Section 8 Section 13 Section 23

04Reasoning

The Court distinguished the general description “commercial purpose” from the specific agreed use as office accommodation.

pp. 9–10

It reasoned that service apartments involve residential-type, short-term occupation and may entail different patterns of ingress and egress, water and drainage use, lift usage, waste generation and fire-safety requirements; the broader commercial character of both activities did not nullify an office-use restriction.

pp. 9–10

The defendants’ claims that the works were non-structural and would not burden common facilities were unsupported by their own evidence or expert evidence. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence, including the Treasurer’s testimony and photographs, and found no evidence that the Treasurer was unauthorised to testify.

p. 11