JUDGMENT : M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for passing of an order in directing the Respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary action against the unauthorised construction (sheds) and the unauthorised commercial Hotel and Biryani business and other fast food activities being carried on at the premises bearing door No.109 (New No.121), Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 34, previous known as No.34, Ramanaicken Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34, and close down any such illegal business, and not to grant or renew any permission or license of any kind to the 7th, 8th and 9th Respondents or to anyone else for running any commercial activities or Hotel/restaurant/fast food or any eating house business or for any alternations/additions in the said premises. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is a stand of the Petitioner that he is the owner of the first floor bearing No.121/F1 (Old No.109) and undivided share in the property bearing Door No.109, Valluvar Kottam High Road, Nungagmbakkam High Road, Chennai -34, previous known as No.34, Ramanaicken Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai. It is a part of a larger property and the entire larger property was partitioned as per registered Partition Deed dated 05.03.2007 (vide Document No.581 of 2007). In fact, as per the said Partition Deed, the vacant land situated in the middle portion (of the said larger property) measuring an extent of 952 sq.ft. was allotted to the share of the Petitioner and his brother, the 7th Respondent. As such, the Petitioner has half undivided share in the said land area measuring 952 sq.ft. and the other half undivided share belongs to the 7th Respondent. Likewise, the Petitioner allotted 1/4th undivided share in the common pathway situated in the Northern side measuring 568 sq.ft. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that as per the Partition Deed dated 05.03.2007, the front road facing three shops in the ground floor and the undivided share in the land thereunder was allotted to the share of the 8th Respondent. As per the Partition Deed, the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent were permitted to put up construction on the middle portion measuring about 952 sq.ft. allotted to them, purely for residential purposes only. As per the Partition Deed, the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent were permitted to put up construction on the middle portion measuring about 952 sq.ft. allotted to them, purely for residential purposes only. Furthermore, as per Partition Deed, none of the parties shall be entitled to sell or otherwise transfer their allotted shares to anyone else unless the same is offered to other party who has joint share therein and only when the offer is refused by each one of the parties to the said deed, they can sell to other third parties. 5. It is the version of the Petitioner that he and the 7th Respondent do have half undivided share in the said land measuring 952 sq. ft. situated in the middle portion and hence, wanted to put up construction over the same. However, the 7th Respondent did not have the funds and therefore, requested the Petitioner to put up the construction of the ground floor and first floor at his full cost, by assuring and repaying the cost incurred for constructing the ground floor for him also. The Petitioner had agreed for the same and believing the words of the 7th Respondent, an Memorandum of Understanding was entered into and executed between him and the 7th Respondent, in and by which, it was agreed that he and 7th Respondent would construct a residential building on the said land measuring 952 sq. ft. at his full cost and that the ground floor would be allotted to the 7th Respondent and the first floor would be allotted to him (Petitioner) and it was further specifically agreed that the open terrace would be kept common etc. Moreover, it was also agreed between the parties that the open terrace and the OSR areas shall be used and enjoyed in common between the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent and that apart, it was agreed that as per the Memorandum of Understanding that no construction shall be put up in the said open terrace without the consent of the other party. 6. In reality, the Petitioner had constructed the entire building consisting of ground and first floors on the said land measuring 952 sq. ft. at his cost as per the said MOU. 6. In reality, the Petitioner had constructed the entire building consisting of ground and first floors on the said land measuring 952 sq. ft. at his cost as per the said MOU. The aforestated construction was put up as per sanctioned plan approved by the Corporation of Chennai and sent by all the co-owners (including the 7th and 8th Respondents) who was then owning the front three shops stated above. After the construction, the 7th Respondent had occupied the ground floor and the Petitioner had occupied the first floor. 7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the 7th Respondent after conveying and transferring the said ground floor together with the half undivided share in the said land measuring 952 sq.ft. to the 8th Respondent in terms of the registered Settlement Deed dated 28.05.2010, without even offering the same to the Petitioner and as such, the Settlement Deed is null and void, because of the fact that under the Settlement Deed, there is no whisper about the 'MOU' entered into between the Petitioner and the 7th Respondent. 8. The plea of the Petitioner is that after the Settlement Deed dated 28.05.2010, the 8th Respondent has unauthorisedly annexed the front side shops with the aforesaid rear side residential ground floor portion, by removing the wall and by converting a small strip of open space in between the two buildings, by putting asbestos sheet roofing and false ceiling. In short, the 8th Respondent had unauthorisedly put up asbestos sheet roofing shed in the open terrace which is commonly belonging to the Petitioner and further, he is having half share therein. As such, the constructions and the additions made are unauthorised and are not to be permitted and they are put up without obtaining the proper sanction from the concerned authorities. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out before this Court that the 8th Respondent had unauthorisedly let out the entire front side shops and the rear side residential ground floor portion to the 9th Respondent viz., M/s.S.S.Hyderabad Biryani Private Limited for commercial purpose of running a non-vegetarian restaurant. Now, the front side shops and the rear side residential portion are being run for running Biryani Hotel and Restaurant and for cooking of huge quantities of Biryani and non-vegetarian food. The open terrace shed is also being utilised in illegal and unauthorised manner for cooking and other commercial purposes etc. Now, the front side shops and the rear side residential portion are being run for running Biryani Hotel and Restaurant and for cooking of huge quantities of Biryani and non-vegetarian food. The open terrace shed is also being utilised in illegal and unauthorised manner for cooking and other commercial purposes etc. There is no proper parking area available for running the aforestated Hotel and the common passages are blocked, because of the blocking and hindering parking and the access to the rear residential portions of the building is caused much inconvenience and hardship. 10. The pith and substance of the contention of the Petitioner is that he is a co-owner in respect of the land and in fact, the common areas including open space and open terrace and also that, he is the exclusive owner of the first floor. Furthermore, the residential portion behind the shops cannot be used for any Restaurant and Hotel purposes and it is purely residential in character. The Petitioner had issued a notice dated 21.10.2016 to the Respondents 1 to 5 calling upon them to take necessary action against the unauthorised Hotel and Biryani business and other activities being carried on thereto. The 1st Respondent/Member Secretary, CMDA, Chennai had issued a direction to the 2nd and 6th Respondents to take necessary action as per letter dated 23.12.2016. However, no action has been taken and accordingly, another notice/representation dated 30.01.2017 was issued to the Respondents 1 to 4, but, even then, there is no progression in the subject matter in issue. Hence, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 11. At this juncture, it is to be pertinently pointed out that this Court on 24.11.2017 had passed an order, among other things, directing the 6th Respondent, after putting the Petitioner and the Private Respondents on notice, to cause an inspection of the business premises in question and file a Status Report. 12. Accordingly, the 6th Respondent/Executive Engineer, Zone IX (Teynampet), Greater Chennai Corporation had filed a Status Report dated 20.12.2017 before this Court (pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 24.11.2017), inter alia, to the effect that the '... business premises in question was inspected on 14.12.2017 by the respondent along with Junior Engineer, Division No.113 and Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit No.26 in the presence of 8th respondent herein and the following floor usage and deviation details are found not. business premises in question was inspected on 14.12.2017 by the respondent along with Junior Engineer, Division No.113 and Assistant Executive Engineer, Unit No.26 in the presence of 8th respondent herein and the following floor usage and deviation details are found not. The 8th respondent submitted a copy of the approved plan at the time of inspection. Sl. No. Floor Details Type of us age of building As per Plan (Sq.M.) As per site (Sq.M.) Deviation (Sq.M.) 1 Ground Floor Commercial Residential 35.31 247.67 207.80 341.56 172.49 93.91 2 First Floor Commercial Residential --- 286.19 35.31 341.58 35.31 55.44 3 Second Floor Residential 9.41 124.80 115.39 13. A perusal of the Status Report dated 20.12.2017 of the Executive Engineer, Zone IX (Teynampet), Greater Chennai Corporation indicates, latently and patently, that the enforcement proceedings would be initiated in accordance with law, since there are deviations. 14. In view of the aforestated Status Report of the Executive Engineer, Zone IX (Teynampet), Greater Chennai Corporation, the said officer is directed to take necessary further action, by issuing necessary enforcement proceeding strictly in accordance with the relevant ingredients of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, by applying his mind and to pass a resultant speaking orders, ascribing necessary qualitative and quantitative reasons, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance through the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court without fail. Before taking a final decision in the enforcement proceeding, the 6th Respondent shall provide an opportunity of hearing, by means of issuance of notice (which is not an empty formality), to the Petitioner/Complainant, the 8th Respondent and other concerned parties, if any. 15. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 16. For reporting compliance, the Registry is directed to list the matter on 18.01.2018.