JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. 1. In this judgment and order, the reference to the petitioner will mean reference to the petitioner company. On 15th September, 2005, the petitioner purchased a premises numbered as 19, Armenian Street Police Station; Barabazar, Kolkata – 700 001. There is no dispute whatsoever that at the time of its sale, the building standing on the premises was in an absolutely dilapidated condition. On 17th July, 2006, the respondent corporation granted permission to demolish it. 2. The petitioner submitted a building plan to the respondent corporation. It conceived of demolition of the existing building and erection of a five storied building (G+5) with a lift installed in it. The building plan was sanctioned by the respondent corporation on 9th November, 2006 and was valid till 8th November, 2011. 3. The petitioner was successful in pulling down the dilapidated building. 4. The affidavit in opposition of the respondent corporation states that whilst constructing the G+5 storied building the petitioner made some deviations from the said sanctioned plan. In those circumstances, a demolition proceeding was initiated by the respondent corporation. It appears that on 13th June, 2008 the Special Officer (Buildings) passed an order, the result of which was that the deviations were regularised in terms of a sanctioned revised plan submitted by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner says that during construction of the new building, certain occupants of the dilapidated building started writing to them to rehabilitate them in the new building. The petitioner found the space sanctioned for raising the building to be too small to accommodate the displaced occupants. All this happened in the latter part of 2009. By that time, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990 were repealed and substituted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Rules, 2009 with effect from 15th September, 2009. 6. In order to obtain the benefit of the said rules the petitioner applied to the respondent corporation for sanction of a revised plan. This revised plan was submitted during the validity period of the original plan, in October 2011. The petitioner says that this plan was submitted for consideration, before submission of the completion certificate or issuance of the occupation certificate in respect of the new building. 7. The purpose of the revised plan was for obtaining sanction to make an additional construction of 3121.16 sq.ft. The petitioner says that this plan was submitted for consideration, before submission of the completion certificate or issuance of the occupation certificate in respect of the new building. 7. The purpose of the revised plan was for obtaining sanction to make an additional construction of 3121.16 sq.ft. According to the petitioner this area would be utilised for housing displaced occupants. It appears from the averments made in the petition that the municipal authorities sought from them copies of the revised plan. By a letter dated 15th December, 2015 this was submitted by the petitioner. The respondents did not sanction it. They sat tight over the matter. 8. In those circumstances, the writ petitioner moved a writ application in this court (W.P. No. 127 of 2016) asking for consideration of the revised plan. On 19th February, 2016 this writ was disposed of by this court asking the corporation to indicate their decision in the application for revised sanction submitted by the petitioner within eight weeks of communication of the order. By the impugned decision dated 12th May, 2016 the writ petitioner application’s for sanction of this revised plan was rejected. 9. The following reasons were advanced by the Joint Municipal Commissioner (R & S). The 2009 Rules had no retrospective operation. When the 2006 plan was sanctioned after relaxing so many building rules to rehabilitate tenants, a new plan could not be sanctioned under the 2009 Rules. Rule 142 (1) is available for construction of a building in placing and stead of an existing building after demolition thereof. Therefore, at the time of sanction there should be an old building. The plan should provide for demolition of that building and erection of a new one. In this case the old building was demolished long ago and if the revised plan was sanctioned it would result in erection of two additional storeys over a new building. Although, the impugned order says that the petitioner made an application for construction of two additional floors over the existing G+5 storied building on 15th February, 2015, in the petition it is stated that this application was made in October 2011 during the validity of the original plan which was valid till 8th November, 2011. Although, the impugned order says that the petitioner made an application for construction of two additional floors over the existing G+5 storied building on 15th February, 2015, in the petition it is stated that this application was made in October 2011 during the validity of the original plan which was valid till 8th November, 2011. Furthermore, it is averred in the petition that on the date of submission of the revised plan in October, 2011 the completion certificate/occupancy certificate for the G+5 construction was not issued by the corporation. 10. It is very important to note the repeal and savings provisions contained in Rule 140 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 “140. Repeal and Savings (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) with effect from the date of coming into the force of these rules, the rules as to the use of building sites and the execution of building work continuing to remain in force by virtue of the provisions of the clause (f) of sub section (2) of section 635 shall cease to continue to remain in force. (2) Any application for sanction of any plan to erect a building submitted on or before the date on which the new rule would come into force in accordance with the provision of these rules and lying pending for sanction on that date shall not be rejected on the ground of the coming into force of these rules during the pendency of such application and every such application shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of the former rules. (3) Notwithstanding such cesser, every building plan sanctioned under the former rules and remaining valid on the date immediately before the date of coming into force of these rules, shall continue to remain valid till the expiry of the period of validity thereof.” 11. This part of the rules has three parts. Any pending application for sanction would be considered according to the former rules. Any sanctioned building plan under the former rules which remain valid on the date immediately before coming into force of the new rules shall continue to remain valid till the expiry of the period of validity thereof. This part of the rules has three parts. Any pending application for sanction would be considered according to the former rules. Any sanctioned building plan under the former rules which remain valid on the date immediately before coming into force of the new rules shall continue to remain valid till the expiry of the period of validity thereof. Unless a building plan was lying with the corporation for sanction the rules with regard to the use of a building sites and the execution of building work continuing to remain in force under Clause (f) of sub-Section 2 of Section 635 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act (relating to the Kolkata Municipal Act, 1951) would cease to be operative. In this case the originally sanctioned building plan was valid till 8th November, 2011. In other words, the building plan was valid on the date of coming into force of the new rules. Hence, by operation of Rule 140 (3) this plan would remain valid till the date of its expiry. Therefore, the originally sanctioned plan formulated on the basis of the old rules would be valid provided it was given effect to completely during its validity period. After coming into force of these rules but during the validity period of the originally sanctioned plan in October 2011 the petitioner submitted a revised plan for sanction by the respondent corporation. The petitioner adds, without contradiction from the said respondent that when this revised plan was submitted, the petitioner had not issued a completion certificate nor the Kolkata Municipal Corporation had issued an occupancy certificate in respect of the said building. 12. At this point of time, it is very relevant to set out Rule 142 of the said rules 2009 admittedly beneficial for the petitioner. “142. Old and insecure buildings (1) The following relaxations of these rules will be available for construction of building in place and stead of existing buildings after demolition thereof :- (a) FAR: Additional FAR to the tune of (100%) of the area presently occupied by the tenants will be allowed over and above the FAR being presently utilized in the existing structure/premises; (b) Height: Normally the height of the re-erected building shall not be allowed to be more than 15.5 m unless the applicant is otherwise so entitled. However, this restriction on height may be relaxed as per the Act provided the proposal for re-erection complies with fire laws and provided further that additional car parking space as may be recommended by Municipal Building Committee is made available, (c) Car Parking Space: At least 50% of the ground floor space of the re-erected building shall normally be earmarked for car parking space where construction of basement for car parking facilities is not feasible as per opinion of the Municipal Building Committee. However, where construction of a basement is feasible as per opinion of the Municipal. Building Committee such basement may normally be earmarked for car parking space. (2) The relaxations under sub-rule (1) above will be available only when the existing building which is to be demolished meets either of the following criteria: (a) The building is more than 50 years and is partly or fully occupied by tenants, (b) the building which is upto 50 years old and declared unfit for human habitation by the appropriate authority, and when tenants demand, and are assured of equivalent amount of renewed space, post construction. Explanation – for the purpose of this sub – clause, the appropriate authority shall be such as may be decided by the State Government. (3) Every application for availing relaxation under sub-rule (1) has to be accompanied with documentary evidence of the tenants of the existing building signifying their consent to the demolition thereof: (4) All applications for relaxation of Building Rules made under this rule have to be approved by the Municipal Building Committee and its recommendations accepted by the Mayor-in-Council. (5) The provisions of this rule will also apply to cases where more than one plot-owner applies after all such plots being amalgamated and mutated as per law. (6) All other rules shall apply, mutatis mutandis.” 13. The following benefits were available for construction being carried out under the new rules for buildings erected after demolition of an existing building. An additional FAR to the tune of 100% of the area presently occupied by the tenants would be allowed over and above the FAR in the existing structure. The building should not be more than 15.5 m. subject to relaxation. An additional FAR to the tune of 100% of the area presently occupied by the tenants would be allowed over and above the FAR in the existing structure. The building should not be more than 15.5 m. subject to relaxation. The building had to be more than 50 years old and partly or fully occupied by tenants or less than 50 years old and declared unfit for human habitation by the appropriate authority and the tenants on demand are assured of equivalent amount of renewed space, post construction. 14. The Joint Municipal Commissioner (R &S) was in one sense right, when he entertained the opinion that the benefit of Rule 142 would only be available to make a new building in place of a demolished building and both demolition and construction had to take place, after coming into force of the new rules which had no retrospective effect. Since, a new building had come up it was not more than 50 years old. 15. Now, take the peculiarities of this case. The application for sanction for G+5 building was approved by the respondent corporation in 2006. In 2008 some additions and alterations were approved. 16. On the date of coming into force of the new rules, the notice of completion could not be issued by the owners/developers. Neither an occupancy certificate was issued by the corporation. Therefore, according to Rule 140 (3) the rest of the building as sanctioned had to be completed according to the originally sanctioned plan of 2006 during its validity period. Hence, in October, 2011 when the petitioner submitted a revised building plan for sanction, there was no existing building because neither a completion certificate nor an occupancy certificate had been issued. It was not an existing building under Chapter XIII of the 2009 rules. Neither could the process of sanction of the revised plan be governed by the old Act because it was neither pending sanction on the date of coming into force of the new rules nor sanctioned on that date. The respondent corporation could not throw out the plan but had to deal with it in accordance with law. 17. When the plan for revised sanction was submitted in October, 2011 no completion certificate or occupation certificate was issued in respect of the building. It was not complete. The building could not be described as an “existing building” at that point of time. 17. When the plan for revised sanction was submitted in October, 2011 no completion certificate or occupation certificate was issued in respect of the building. It was not complete. The building could not be described as an “existing building” at that point of time. If the revised plan were to be considered and sanctioned at that point of time, the building which had previously been demolished had to be considered as the existing building. Now, that the respondent corporation has sat tight over the plan, if it considers its sanction today, it has to do so, notionally treating the present building as non-existing and the previous building as notionally existing. The new building fully or partially erected should be taken as a new building constructed after demolition of the old building. The age of the existing building is to be computed accordingly. 18. It is in the fact finding and in the interpretation of the new rules that the Joint Commissioner has made a mistake. But I make it absolutely clear that any sanction of a revised plan must be strictly according to the Building Rules 2009 on the basis of the above observations. 19. The impugned order of the Joint Municipal Commissioner dated 12th May, 2016 is set aside. The Commissioner, without delegation of his power is directed to consider the revised sanction plan of the petitioners submitted in 2011 and re-submitted on 15th December, 2015 being annexure-P7 in accordance with law, keeping in mind the above observations of this court, upon giving an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and also an opportunity of hearing to them by a reasoned order within three months of communication of this order. 20. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.