JUDGMENT K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The deceased petitioner was aggrieved with Ext. P10 order passed by the Municipality under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999; as directed by this Court in Ext. P9 judgment. The legal heirs have since death, impleaded themselves as supplemental petitioners. The brief facts to be noticed are that the petitioner along with another was in possession of 40 sq. metres of landed property, wherein there was an existing building having two rooms. The said two rooms are said to have been a part of the row building with the different buildings on a straight line; owned by different persons. The adjacent building owners are said to have reconstructed their buildings which were also regularised by the Municipality. 2. The petitioner along with the co-owner made an application for reconstruction after demolishing the two rooms. On Exhibit P2 permit obtained, the co-owners built a two storied building on the property with the petitioner owning the ground floor portion and the other owning the first floor portion. After construction of the building as per the permit issued at Ext. P2, the Municipality issued Ext. P4 notice finding that there was a deviation from the approved plan insofar as the two metre set-back has been infringed by the slab and beams. The petitioner filed objection to the same at Ext. P5. However, the Municipality affirmed the notice and directed demolition of the new building constructed. 3. The petitioner filed an application for regularisation under Rule 72 of the Kerala Building Rules, which was rejected as per Ext. P8(b). Subsequently the petitioner approached this Court and obtained P9 judgment, pursuant to which Ext. P10 order was passed; which is impugned herein. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are entitled to the exemption given to row buildings, insofar as the set back; as is seen from Chapter IX of the Building Rules. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality would contend that the petitioner's building would be covered under Rule 65 & 68 of the Rules and not under Rule 72. If the petitioner's building is covered under Rule 65 definitely there has to be a set back of 1.5 metres from the road as is provided under Rule 68, goes the argument 5. If the petitioner's building is covered under Rule 65 definitely there has to be a set back of 1.5 metres from the road as is provided under Rule 68, goes the argument 5. Chapter IX of the Kerala Building Rules deals with row buildings. Rule 65 provides for permission for construction or reconstruction of row buildings adjacent to a street; where the Municipality has declared its intention to allow such row buildings. Rule 68 deals with construction being allowed of new buildings, in which case; a set back of 1.5 metres is to be provided. Reconstruction is dealt with separately under Rule 72 where in reconstruction, repair, alternation or addition, both horizontal or vertical, on/of existing row buildings are permitted; irrespective of whether it is on the side of a street where row buildings are permitted or not. Hence Rule 72 does not require a declaration published by the Municipality as to the permission to construct a row building. 6. Rule 65 and the publication referred to therein would be applicable only when new constructions are made. In such cases, Rule 68 would be applicable and there should be left a set back of 1.5 metres. Rule 72 culls out reconstruction of existing row buildings from Rule 68 and provides for permission of such reconstruction/irrespective of the plot area used and set backs provided. 7. When admittedly there was a row building existing in the property and the owners had sought for reconstruction along with an addition of a floor, it is Rule 72 which would be applicable and not Rule 68. Hence neither is a declaration by the Municipality required nor can the set back under Rule 68 be insisted upon. 8. While examining Rule 72, it is noticed that in 2009, by an amendment, the word 'use' was deleted and reconstruction permitted under Rule 72 was only for row buildings coming under 'group A2 residential occupancy'. Hence neither is a declaration by the Municipality required nor can the set back under Rule 68 be insisted upon. 8. While examining Rule 72, it is noticed that in 2009, by an amendment, the word 'use' was deleted and reconstruction permitted under Rule 72 was only for row buildings coming under 'group A2 residential occupancy'. Be that as it may, at the time when the subject construction was carried out, the Rule which existed is as extracted: "72: Reconstruction, etc., of existing row buildings: Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, in the case of existing row buildings, reconstruction, repair, alternation or addition, both horizontal and vertical shall be permitted irrespective of whether it is on the side of a street where row buildings are permitted or not, and irrespective of the plot area, use and set backs provided." 9. On the above extracted Rule, as it existed at the relevant time, there can be no set-back insisted for a reconstruction of the existing row building. The mere fact that the deceased petitioner and the other co-owner were, using the existing two floors as lawyers office, would not stand in the way of regularisation under Rule 72 since the restriction as to use, was introduced only in 1999, after the construction was effected. It is also seen that the maximum floors permitted in reconstruction is two floors with a stair case inside the building, which mandate has not been violated. In such circumstance, the petitioner's reconstruction will not be covered under Rule 65 or 68. The petitioner shall be entitled to have the building regularised and the Municipality shall immediately issue completion and occupancy certificate, if not already issued and number the building and if a provisional number is granted on the basis of the interim order, then the same shall be regularised. Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.