JUDGMENT A. S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the communication dated 27/09/2017 issued by the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) by which the petitioner has been informed that the no-objection certificate for undertaking repairs of the building standing on plot No.175 of Naigaon estate would be granted subject to payment of an amount of Rs.20,87,700/-. The demand of one time premium for change of user from residential use of Nursing Home activity by paying Rs.13,15,800/- along with amount of Rs.3,79,900/- towards breach deposit is being objected to by the petitioner. A further direction is sought to be issued to the respondents to process the petitioner's application for regularisation without insisting for no-objection from the Estate Department of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. 2. The facts in brief are that pursuant to a lease agreement on 15/06/1949 executed by the Municipal Corporation, the petitioner claims right through M/s Vincent Court Private Ltd., a Company that constructs buildings in consonance with the object of the Municipal Corporation. As per Clause-15 of the said lease agreement the building in question was permitted to be used for offices, go-downs, residential purposes and shops that were not prohibited. The petitioner has interest in Block No.15 of the first floor of the building. The petitioner utilized the same for residential purposes since 1990. In 1996 the petitioner sought to utilize the premises partly for residential and partly for starting a Nursing Home. Since the petitioner intended to start the Nursing Home, the petitioner's lessor filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court to restrain him from doing so. Initially an order of injunction was issued by the City Civil Court against the petitioner restraining him from starting the Nursing Home. However this Court in Appeal From Order No.113/1998 by order dated 06/02/1998 stayed the order passed by the trial Court as a result of which the petitioner started operating the Nursing Home. The aforesaid civil suit was subsequently decreed and the petitioner was restrained from using the premises for commercial activities in excess of 30 meters. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the decree passed by the City Civil Court by filing First Appeal No.473/2010. In the said first appeal, the petitioner sought interim relief. On 11/03/2011 an interim order was passed protecting the petitioner's activities. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the decree passed by the City Civil Court by filing First Appeal No.473/2010. In the said first appeal, the petitioner sought interim relief. On 11/03/2011 an interim order was passed protecting the petitioner's activities. 3. On 28/02/2011 the petitioner was informed by the Municipal Corporation that he would be required to pay penalty before considering his case for regularisation of the change of user. It is the case of the petitioner that such amount was paid by him. The proposal that was submitted by the petitioner seeking regularisation was however kept pending. Ultimately, on 27/08/2014, the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) informed the petitioner that subject to paying penalty for effecting change of activity, for alteration and interior work as well as lucrative activities premium coupled with no-objection certificate from the Estate Department, the plan seeking approval and regularisation would be considered. It is the case of the petitioner that these amounts have been paid to the Municipal Corporation. The petitioner however is aggrieved by the direction of obtaining a no-objection certificate from the Estate Department. The petitioner attempted to convince the Authorities that such no-objection certificate was not necessary and the same may not be insisted upon. Ultimately on 27/09/2017 the impugned communication came to be issued to the petitioner demanding one time premium for change of user as well as amount towards breach deposit. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs stated herein above. 4. Dr Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that Clause 15 of the lease deed dated 15/06/1949 permitted lease of the premises in the building for offices, godowns, residential purposes as well as for shops that were not prohibited. In terms of the said lease deed, part of the premises was being used for residential purpose and part thereof as a Nursing Home. The Municipal Corporation having demanded penalty for effecting change of activity at the rate of 30% of the prevailing ready recknor rate along with amounts for alteration and interior work coupled with lucrative activity premium which the petitioner had paid, there was not justification whatsoever for again seeking one time premium for change of user. The Municipal Corporation having demanded penalty for effecting change of activity at the rate of 30% of the prevailing ready recknor rate along with amounts for alteration and interior work coupled with lucrative activity premium which the petitioner had paid, there was not justification whatsoever for again seeking one time premium for change of user. There was no question of any user being changed especially when Clause 17(2) of the lease deed required consent of the Commissioner or City Engineer only when there was alteration or addition to the building on the demised land or to any variation in the user of any portion of the land. Since a commercial activity in the form of operating a Nursing Home was permissible under the lease-deed itself, there was not reason to require the petitioner to obtain a no-objection certificate from the Estate Department. There was no legal basis whatsoever for demanding one time premium for change of user. On this count it was submitted that this demand of one time premium for change of user as well as amount towards breach deposit is liable to be set aside and the petitioner's application seeking regularisation ought to be processed without insisting for a no-objection certificate from the Estate Department. 5. Shri Anoop Patil, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation opposed the aforesaid submissions by relying upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. He referred to the lease-deed dated 15/06/1949 as well as Clauses 15 and 17 thereof to urge that initially the petitioner was utilising the premises for residential use and the same had been changed for a portion of the said premises by using it for running a Nursing Home. It was for that reason necessary for the petitioner to obtain the no-objection certificate from the Estate Department. He referred to the Circular dated 17/01/2001 in the matter of valuation of land as well as the revised methodology for charging premium in that regard. He also sought to rely upon sub clause (2) of Clause-17 of the lease-deed to urge that in case of any alteration or variation of user, the consent of the Commissioner or City Engineer was necessary. He also sought to rely upon sub clause (2) of Clause-17 of the lease-deed to urge that in case of any alteration or variation of user, the consent of the Commissioner or City Engineer was necessary. Since the impugned communication dated 27/09/2017 had been issued in accordance with the terms of the lease-deed as well as the Circular of 2001, there was no illegality in the demand of one time premium from the petitioner. It was thus submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance we have perused the documents on record. At the outset it would be necessary to refer to relevant admitted facts and documents. By the lease-deed dated 15/06/1949 the Municipal Corporation as lessor granted lease of land with permission to construct the building thereon. Various terms and conditions were mentioned in the said lease-deed. As per Clause-15 of the said lease-deed, the lessee was to use the building standing on the demised land only for offices, go-downs and residential purposes as well as shops that were not prohibited. As per Clause-17 proviso (2) it was agreed that consent of the Commissioner or the City Engineer would be required for any alteration or addition to the building or other erection on the demised land or to any variation of user of any portion thereof. In other words, such consent was necessary if there was any alteration or addition to the building or if there was any variation of user of any portion of the demised land. The petitioner claims his entitlement through the lessee, M/s Vincent Court Private Ltd. After the petitioner intended to use the premises partly for residence and partly for running a Nursing Home such user was objected by the petitioner's lessor-M/s Vincent Court Private Ltd. The lessor filed a civil suit seeking to restrain the petitioner from starting the Nursing Home. The City Civil Court on 01/02-12-1997 passed an order restraining the petitioner from starting the Nursing Home. The petitioner challenged this order in Appeal From Order No.113/1998. While staying the order passed by the trial Court, the learned Single Judge observed as under : " The appellant in his affidavit has pointed out that he proposes to use the premises mainly for resident and partly for clinic with outdoor patients. The petitioner challenged this order in Appeal From Order No.113/1998. While staying the order passed by the trial Court, the learned Single Judge observed as under : " The appellant in his affidavit has pointed out that he proposes to use the premises mainly for resident and partly for clinic with outdoor patients. The building is located in what is known as R-2 Zone under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. In terms of Sub-Section (iv) of Section 52 of the said Regulations, buildings located in this zone, user includes those uses which are permitted in a purely residential Zone. In terms of Regulation 51(4), medical clinic with out patients treatment facility not exceeding 30 sq. meters of a floor can be permitted. The Memorandum of Articles of Association as they stand also do not prohibit user of premises other than residence." The aforesaid suit came to be thereafter decreed by the City Civil Court restraining the petitioner from using the premises for commercial activities with regard to area exceeding 30 sq. meters. The petitioner challenged the said decree by filing First Appeal No.473/2010 and the said first appeal is presently pending. By virtue of interim orders passed therein the petitioner continues to operate his Nursing Home in part of the premises. The observations made in the order dated 06/02/1998 clearly indicate that even in terms of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 and especially Regulation 51(4), a medical clinic with out patients treatment facility not exceeding 30 sq. meters of a floor is permissible. 7. Another relevant aspect to be kept in mind is that the petitioner has sought regularisation of the user of portion of the first floor in his occupation for Nursing Home activity and he had made an application in that regard to the Municipal Corporation. On 27/08/2014 the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) approved the said proposal subject to complying with payment of penalty of Rs.8,04,276/- for effecting change of activity at the rate of 30% of the prevailing ready reckonor rate of the State Government, Rs.33,660/- for alterations and interior work such as erection of cabins, partitions and an amount of Rs.3,960/- being lucrative activity premium at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter of the built up area. meter of the built up area. It is not in dispute that the petitioner paid the aforesaid amounts on 10/09/2014 and a receipt in that regard is placed on record. The aforesaid would indicate that the proposed regularisation for carrying out Nursing Home activity was permitted by the Municipal Corporation subject to making necessary payment which included a penalty for effecting change of activity. This would indicate that since such change in activity was permissible in the form of conducting the Nursing Home activity, approval was granted by the Municipal Corporation. 8. The Municipal Corporation in its affidavit in reply has relied upon the Circular dated 17/01/2001 pertaining to the revised policy regarding valuation of land. The premium for change of user not involving extra construction which finds place in Clause-3(b) is relied upon to justify the demand of one time premium for change of user. Perusal of this clause indicates that a lessee may approach the Establishment Department for allowing change of user on residential plot for any user other than permitted in the lease agreement. As stated herein above under Clause-15 read with Clause-17 proviso (iv) of the lease-deed, partial user of the premises for running a Nursing Home is not found to be prohibited. On the contrary the petitioner has already been saddled with penalty for effecting partial change of activity by the Municipal Corporation itself. The interim order dated 06/02/1998 passed by this Court referred to herein above records such permissibility in the light of Regulation 51(4) of the Regulations of 1991. Hence this stand taken by the Municipal Corporation for charging one time premium cannot justified. Consequently the question of there being any breach of the terms of the lease also does not arise. We therefore find that the demand of one time premium for change of user as well as penalty for breaches incurred by the lessee would not be attracted in the facts of the present case. The application for regularisation preferred by the petitioner is thus required to be considered by the Municipal Corporation without insisting for a no-objection certificate from its Estate Department. 9. For aforesaid reasons it is held that the petitioner is not liable to pay one time premium for change of user and penalty for breaches incurred by the lessee as demanded by the impugned notice dated 27/09/2017. 9. For aforesaid reasons it is held that the petitioner is not liable to pay one time premium for change of user and penalty for breaches incurred by the lessee as demanded by the impugned notice dated 27/09/2017. Consequently, the petitioner's application for regularisation shall be considered and processed in accordance with law without insisting for no-objection certificate from the Estate Department of the Municipal Corporation. The said application be processed expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.