ORDER : K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. 1. These two writ petitions are at the instance of the owner and occupier of the premises respectively, bearing Door No.162/A, corresponding to new No.717, K.P. Road, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil. 2. The petitioner in WP(MD)No.586 of 2019 is the owner of the building. The petitioner in WP(MD)No.1258 of 2019 is the present occupier of the said building. 3. The petitioner in WP(MD)No.586 of 2019 has taken up string of contentions, without any basis. There is absolutely no merit in any of those contentions for the simple reason that without obtaining planning permit from the Local Planning Authority, the petitioner has put up the building having G+3 floors. 4. The building in question has already been sealed. We, therefore, do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition filed by a person, who has no regard to the law of the land. 5.We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition in WP(MD)No. 586 of 2019. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD)Nos.502 and 503 of 2019 are closed. 6. The petitioner in WP(MD)No.1258 of 2019 is stated to be the tenant of the premises bearing Door No.162/A, corresponding to new No.717, K.P. Road, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil. There is a dispute with regard to the actual area in the possession of the petitioner in the building in question. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of the ground and first floor of the building. The said contention is refuted by the learned counsel for the Municipality. According to the counsel, the petitioner is in occupation of only the ground floor. 8. There is no dispute that before taking up enforcement action, notice was not issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, being the occupier of the building, is entitled to a notice in view of the proviso to Section 56 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. To a query, learned counsel for the Local Planning Authority submitted that no such notice was issued to the petitioner. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that notice was issued only to the owner of the premises. It is therefore very clear that the mandatory provisions of the Act has not been complied with by the Local Planning Authority before sealing the premises, in the possession of the occupier. 10. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that notice was issued only to the owner of the premises. It is therefore very clear that the mandatory provisions of the Act has not been complied with by the Local Planning Authority before sealing the premises, in the possession of the occupier. 10. We direct the Local Planning Authority to inspect the ground and first floor of the premises in question to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of those two floors. In case, it is found that the petitioner has been conducting the hotel business in the ground and first floor of the building, the same shall be de-sealed forthwith on receipt of a copy of this order. In case there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has been doing business in the first floor, the requirement is only to de-seal the ground floor of the premises. In any case, it is for the Local Planning Authority to take a decision in the matter, of course, it should be on the basis of the relevant materials. 11. We permit the Local Planning Authority to issue fresh notice to the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Thereafter, it is open to the Local Planning Authority to pass appropriate orders, taking into account the response given by the petitioner. This order would not stand in the way of the petitioner from demolishing the unauthorised construction and report compliance to the Local Planning Authority and the Local Body for further action. 12. The writ petition in WP(MD)N.1258 of 2019 is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD)Nos. 1077 and 1078 of 2019 are closed.