JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. 1. Having heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. Amit V. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. B.S. Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr. Umang H. Oza, learned advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and perused the records, we may note that the dispute is about the construction of a building [Ground + 02 floors] over the Plot No.40 of Shri Mahadev Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Ring Road, Surat. The society being aggrieved by the change in the original sanctioned plan at the ends of the Surat Municipal Corporation and the usage of the building at the ends of the appellant herein – original respondent for other than the residential purposes, has approached the writ court seeking following reliefs:- “9(A) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.3.2016 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A to the petition and also ordered the application at Exh.5 in Lavad Case No.104 of 2015 at Annexure-P to the petition be allowed; (B) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to restrain respondent No.2 for utilizing the plot/ bungalow No.40 of petitioner no.1 society or part thereof for any other purpose than residential purpose; (C) Be pleased to award the cost of this petition; (D) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted. Prayers 9(AA) and 9(BB) added by way of amendment are read as under:- (AA) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside the Development Plan dated 01/06/2016 and the BU Permission dated 06/06/2016 at Annexure-Y to the petition issued by the respondent No.3. (BB) Your Lordships will be pleased to restrain the respondent No.2 from utilizing the premises on Plot No.40 or any part thereof for any other purpose than the residential purpose.” 2. (BB) Your Lordships will be pleased to restrain the respondent No.2 from utilizing the premises on Plot No.40 or any part thereof for any other purpose than the residential purpose.” 2. The learned Single Judge having noted the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties has reached at the conclusion that there are specific bye-laws in the Cooperative Housing Society for use of the plot allotted to the members for residence and the land cannot be permitted to be converted into commercial use or any other purposes. As the order passed by the Surat Municipal Corporation sanctioning the plan contrary to the bye-laws of the society and the grant of Building Use Permission was found to be per-se illegal, the writ petition was allowed quashing the Development Plan dated 01.06.2016 and the Building Use Permission dated 06.06.2016. 3. It is further directed by the learned Single Judge that as the construction has been made and the property is being used de-hors or contrary to the bye-laws of the society, the entire constructions are to be pull down at the cost of the respondent and, in case, the respondent fails to demolish the construction, the Surat Municipal Corporation is directed to pull down the entire structure and realize or recover the cost of demolition from the respondent. 4. When the present appeal was filed, in the order dated 13.09.2019, this Court while admitting the appeal has recorded as under:- “Draft amendment is allowed. Necessary incorporation be carriedout within a week. Shri Yatin Oza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had filed the undertaking, which was required by order dated 9 th September 2019. In the undertaking, it has been mentioned that the appellant and his wife may be permitted to use the ground floor for office purposes and in addition to that 40% of the total area of the first floor also for office purposes. The remaining 60% area of the first floor and the complete second floor to be used for residential purposes. Shri B. S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – society submitted that as per the Building Use Permission granted by the Surat Municipal Corporation, the appellant is entitled to use only ground floor for office purposes and the entire first floor and second floor for residential purposes. Shri B. S. Patel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent – society submitted that as per the Building Use Permission granted by the Surat Municipal Corporation, the appellant is entitled to use only ground floor for office purposes and the entire first floor and second floor for residential purposes. He further submits that no use in violation of the Building Use Permission can be allowed. In view of the above, till further order of this Court, the appellant is permitted to use the ground floor only for office purposes, whereas first floor and second floor will be used for residential purposes. It would however, be open for the appellant to apply to the Surat Municipal Corporation for conversion of the use of the first floor and second floor. In case such an application is moved, the Surat Municipal Corporation may deal with the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the respondent society. We further provide that till further orders, the effect and operation of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge shall remain stayed. Appeal is Admitted. Let the notice be issued to the unrepresented parties returnable within four weeks. List the matter on 21 st October 2019.” 5. It was, thus, permitted by this Court that the appellant namely original respondent is permitted to use the ground floor only for office purposes, whereas, first and second floor will be used for residential purposes. Though liberty has been granted to the appellant to apply for conversion of the use of first floor and second floor and the Surat Municipal Corporation is directed to deal with the application, if any, in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the respondent - society, but pertinent is to note that there is no such application for conversion of use before the Surat Municipal Corporation which could be placed before us. 6. However, the demolition as directed by the learned Single Judge has been stayed with the order dated 13.09.2019. 7. 6. However, the demolition as directed by the learned Single Judge has been stayed with the order dated 13.09.2019. 7. When the matter was further proceeded, this Court has passed an order dated 10.03.2025 wherein while noticing that the primary issue for consideration is about the usage of the construction, this Court opined to appoint a learned advocate as an advocate commission to conduct site inspection of the building in the presence of the appellant and the representatives of the society, i.e. either the President or the Secretary of the society. The learned advocate commissioner has submitted a report dated 22.03.2025 which had been supplied to the learned counsel for the parties to file their response. 8. A perusal of the advocate commissioner report indicates that the building-in-question is not being used for the purposes, for which, it was permitted by the interim order dated 13.09.2019 passed in the present appeal. When this was pointed out to the learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, the appellant has filed an undertaking in the shape of his own affidavit dated 19.08.2025 which states as under:- “I, Pankaj A. Karnawat, Male, Aged about 51 years, residing at : 40, Mahadev Nagar Soc., Opp. New Civil Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat – 395002, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as here under:- 1. That I shall use the subject premises being Bunglow No: 40, Mahadev Nagar Soc., Opp. New Civil Hospital, Majura Gate, Surat – 395002, for the purpose as stated herein below; 2. That I am a CA by profession and my wife is a lawyer by profession. I shall use the ground floor of the above mentioned premises as office of my CA firm and the office of my wife. 3. I shall not let out said premises to any outsider or third party for the purpose of using it for office or any commercial purpose. 4. The 1 st and 2 nd for office purpose or any commercial purpose and will be used for only residential purpose. 5. The furniture and layout of the 1 st and 2 nd be modified in a manner so as to make it more convenient for residential use. 6. The road of the society shall not be used for the purpose of parking of vehicles by any visitors or guests or any office employees or staff. 7. 5. The furniture and layout of the 1 st and 2 nd be modified in a manner so as to make it more convenient for residential use. 6. The road of the society shall not be used for the purpose of parking of vehicles by any visitors or guests or any office employees or staff. 7. The other directions as contained in the Order dated 13.09.2019 shall also be adhered to. 8. I undertake to abide by the same in its true letter and spirit.” 9. Mr. B. S. Patel, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent – society, however, expressed serious doubt about the statement made by the appellant in the undertaking given on affidavit dated 19.08.2025. 10. The learned senior counsel would submit that the initial proposal submitted by the original respondent – appellant herein was for construction of a residential building [G+2]. The original sanctioned plan wherein approval was granted by the respondent – society is dated 10.02.2014 and can be found at Page ‘114/K’ of the paper-book. The submission is that though the original sanctioned plan was of G+2, but the same was approved by the society with the clear understanding that the construction was for the purposes of a residential building. However, instead of raising construction as per the original sanctioned plan, the original respondent – appellant herein had applied to Surat Municipal Corporation for making major deviations from the original sanctioned plan by submitting a revised plan, which was approved on 01.06.2016, without any permission or approval of the society. The revised plan is at Page ‘114/T’ of the paper-book. 11. The submission is that as per the bye-laws of the society, the land use of the building constructed within the precinct of the society can only be residential. The building-in-question cannot be used for any other purposes than the residential purposes for which the original plan was sanctioned with the approval of the society. 12. However, on a query made by the Court about the usage of the ground floor of the building-in-question for office purposes namely for office of the appellant and his wife who are the professionals, it is categorically stated by the appellant on oath in the present proceedings that the appellant is a chartered accountant by profession and his wife is a lawyer. It was contended that the ground floor for the building constructed by them may be permitted to be used for office of both of them. 13. But before entering into the said issue, in view of the undertaking given by the appellant herein, taking note of the order dated 13.09.2019, we may provide that the appellant be permitted to use the ground floor of the building-in-question for office purposes tentatively, that too for their own use, till the next date fixed. As per the undertaking given by the appellant, the appellant will not be permitted to let out the premises in question to any outsider or 3 rd party for the purpose of using it for office or any non-residential purposes. 14. We may further note that an undertaking is given by the appellant that the first and second floor of the building-in- question shall not be used for any other purposes, other than residential purposes. 15. When the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent – society namely the original petitioner raised serious doubt about the intention of the appellant to use the first and second floor of the building-in-question for residential purposes, Mr. Manish Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant be granted four weeks time to make necessary internal changes for bringing the first and second floor of the building-in-question, strictly in conformity with the original sanctioned plan dated 10.02.2014. It is also submitted that pursuant to the revised sanctioned plan which has been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge, a lift has already been installed which is set in place. The appellant may be permitted to retain the lift installed under the revised plan which will be used for the purposes as stated in the undertaking. 16. Taking note of the above, we post the matter on 13.11.2025 to enable the appellant to carry out the necessary internal deviations, to bring the first and second floor of the building-in-question in conformity with the original sanctioned plan dated 10.02.2014. 17. However, any internal minor deviation such the staircase etc., which may not offend the original sanctioned plan, would also be permitted to retain. 18. Let an affidavit be filed by the appellant in compliance of the above observations, i.e. of the understanding given by him before us. 17. However, any internal minor deviation such the staircase etc., which may not offend the original sanctioned plan, would also be permitted to retain. 18. Let an affidavit be filed by the appellant in compliance of the above observations, i.e. of the understanding given by him before us. In case of failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the above noted undertaking given by him before us, necessary adverse consequences will follow. Let this matter be placed on 13.11.2025 at 12:30 p.m.