ORDER 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the grounds that appellant is a lessee of Jammu Development Authority vide Perpetual Lease Deed dated 28th March, 1978 bearing plot No. 99/9 situated at Trikuta nagar, Jammu measuring 40'X 80'. Copy of the Perpetual lease deed along with site plan of the plot No. 99/9 enclosed as Annexure "A". After registration of perpetual lease deed dated 28th march, 1978, the appellant has constructed the building in the afore said ploy in the year 1979, copy of the sketch of the building plan is enclosed herewith. Order impugned in the appeal is against the facts and law and position existing on spot which is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and deserves to be set aside. Impugned order dated 25th July, 2012 enclosed with the appeal as Annexure "C". Building in question was an old building which was under the tenancy of N.H.P.C who left the building in the month of Nov., 2010 and building has been damaged extensively by the N.H.P.C Ltd. i.e. damaged the electric wiring and the water/sanitary fittings and same was required to be repaired. Present building being used for religious purpose i.e some of the family friends and visitors who came to Vaishno Devi, Amar Nath Shrine and Shiv Khori Shrine used to occupy the said house but same is not being used for any commercial purpose. As the appellant is not running any sort of business or commercial activities. Father of the appellant is residing in Mexico with his son and appellant being the daughter is in constructive possession of the said house and attorney holder of father for looking up the immovable property. Copy of the attorney is enclosed at Annexure "B". Prior to impugned order dated 25th July, 2012, appellant had received a show cause notice which was properly replied by the appellant and it was submitted that building in question was not being used for commercial purpose. Respondent No. 1 without appreciating the facts of the case, issued demolition order which is against the law and does not disclosed the nature of violation of the Act, rules any byelaws . Impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and has not being passed in consonance with the provisions of Control of Building Operation Act. Respondent No. 1 without appreciating the facts of the case, issued demolition order which is against the law and does not disclosed the nature of violation of the Act, rules any byelaws . Impugned order is bad in the eyes of law and has not being passed in consonance with the provisions of Control of Building Operation Act. Appellant has not placed even a single new brick and question of erection and re-erection does not arise at all. Appellant has not use the building in question for commercial purpose and the impugned order issued by the respondent No. 1 deserves to be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent have filed objections in the shape of written arguments in para 1 of the objections, it has been stated that appellant has convert the residential building into a Lodge in the name and style of White House Lodge in the residential area at plot NO. 99/9 near Police Station Trikuta Nagar without obtaining permission from the Jammu Municipal Corporation, and appellant has changed the land use from the residential to commercial. Thus violated the provisions of Master plan and J&K Control of Building Operation Regulations 1998. Appellant has been asked in terms of final notice under section 7 (3) of Control of Building Operation Act issued on 25th July 2012 and served upon the appellant for demolishing the unauthorized construction Para 4 & 5 of the objections stated that appellant has committed the violation by changing the land use by residential to commercial by opening a Lodge in purely residential area and total violation committed by the appellant are shown as under: S.No. Particulars As per master plan As per site As per site Quantum of violation In sft. %age 1. Plot area 3200 sft. 2. Coverage 50% a) Ground floor. 1600 Sft. 1698 Sft. 98 sft. 6% b)First Floor 1600Sft. 1452 Sft. Nil Nil 3. a) Front set back 20'-0" 21'-9" Nil Nil b) Rear set back 10'-0" 12'-0" for 29'-3" Nil for 10'-9" Nil for 29'-3" 10% for 10'-9" Nil for 73% 100% for 27% c) side set back 10'-0" 10'-0" for 45'-6" nil for 45'-6" 100% for 34'-6 Nil for 57% 100% for 43% Other side nil nil nil nil 4. a) Land Use Residential Currently using as a lodge b) Height 40'-0" 31'-0" Nil nil c) FAR 150 150 nil Nil "5. a) Land Use Residential Currently using as a lodge b) Height 40'-0" 31'-0" Nil nil c) FAR 150 150 nil Nil "5. Total Plot area : 3200 Sft. Violation at 2nd floor : 1698 Sft. Violation of Projection ; 1452 Sft. Total Violation : 3150 Sft. 3. And violation committed by the appellant can not be compounded in the terms of Regulations 11 of J&K Control of Building Operation Regulation 1998. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that respondent can issue the notice for demolition of the building in terms of section 7 of J&K Control of Building Operation Act 1988 provided there is violation of section 4 of the Control of Building Operation Act, 1988. Section 4 of the said Act is reproduced hereunder: 4. Control of Development of Building operation No person shall undertake or carry out the development of any site in any Municipal area, local area, Town area, Notified area or Area notified under the Jammu and Kashmir State Town Planning Act, 1963, or erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to a road in such area except with the previous permission of the authority concerned in writing. In present case building is already complete and petitioner has raised up new constructions. 5. In support of the arguments, Learned Counsel for the appellant has referred a citation Titled; Krishan Chander Bandral S/O Sh. Janak Singh Patta v. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commr./Secretary to Govt. Housing and Urban Development Deptt. Civil Secretariat and others OWP 13521012 decided on 5.10.2012 and another case titled Mahesh Goswami v. Joint Commissioner JMC date of decision 17.1.2011 and dt. Of decision 24.4.2012 and another case titled M/S Nav Durga Sweets and Fast Foods and another v. Building Operation Controlling Authority Jammu and others submitted on 12.1.2011 and decided on 17.1.2011. 6. From the pleadings of the parties to appeal it is apparent that building of appellant is already in existence but appellant is using the building as shrine and accordingly the guest who visit to Mata vaishno Devi, Baba Amar Nath Shrine etc. The appellant is under obligation to seek proper permissions from JMC for clarifying the use of land safe guarding the interest of common man. The appellant is under obligation to seek proper permissions from JMC for clarifying the use of land safe guarding the interest of common man. If the appellant is interested to serve the common man without any monetary benefit than at least have a parking space in the house and appellant can not be permitted to put the general public in discomfort for personal name and fame. It is to the appellant to serve the public either free of gain/cost or open the building for residence of visitors not at the cost of common mass who faces unnecessary convenience. In the present case building stand erected already. In OWP 1352/012 notice issued by the JMC had been quashed by issuing writ of certiorari This Tribunal has to dispose of the appeal in terms of section 13 of Construction of Building Operation Act, 1988 arising out of section 5 or section 7 of the Act and decided the appeal in terms of regulations 11 of Control of Building Operations Regulations 1998. The offence of minor nature can be compounded subject to certain limitations contained in regulations 11 (2). 7. Notice u/s 7 (11) and section 7(3) are issued when there is contraventions of BOCA provisions i.e. section 4 and of Section 4 of BOCA which says that no person shall undertake or carryout the development of any site in any Municipal area, local area, town area, Notified area, State Town Planning Act, 1963 errect or re-errect any building or make or extend any excavations or lay out any means of access to a road in such area except with previous permission of authority concerned in writing. In present case, it is admitted fact that appellant has completed his building constructions already but it is used for lodging purpose and impugned order issued by respondents is contrary to the provisions of section 4 of BOCA 1988 and not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is set aside. Respondents are at liberty to proceed against appellant under relevant law. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Record file of the JMC be sent back and office file shall be consigned to records. Appellant is directed to file an undertaking for not using the premises for commercial purpose.