ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Chief Commissioner in Appeal No.160/2023 at Annexure-K confirming the orders passed under Section 248(1) and (3) of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (for short 'the Act') at Annexures-G and H. 2. Petitioner is the owner of the property and he is stated to have applied for sanction plan for Site No.14/1 and it is submitted that complaint was filed by the 5 th respondent pursuant to which respondent - BBMP has taken action. The order under Section 248(3) of the BBMP Act was challenged at an earlier instance in Appeal No.9/2023 and the said order came to be set aside remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. 3. Once again the proceedings under Section 248 of the Act were initiated and finally, the impugned order under Section 248(3) came to be passed on 31.08.2023 which again has been challenged before the Chief Commissioner, who has rejected the appeal by order dated 01.06.2024. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the order under Section 248(3) of the Act requires to be set aside on various grounds including that there was no proper notice as well as on the ground that the setback as determined by the respondent - Authority is not in accordance with Note 9 to Bye-Law 9.2 of the BBMP Building Bye-Laws, 2003. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Bye-Law 9.2 of the BBMP Bye-Laws, calculation of set back ought to have been as regards the entirety of Site No.14 and not the trifurcated portion of 14/1 which has been resorted to by the respondent - BBMP and accordingly, it is submitted that the order under Section 248(3) of the Act has to be set aside on such ground. 6. It is to be noticed that such ground has been adverted to in the order of the Chief Commissioner who in the order at Annexure-K in Para No.3 has rejected such contention including the contention regarding the jurisdiction as regards Section 74 of the Act in Para No.8. The Chief Commissioner while rejecting the contention regarding the jurisdiction has noticed the detailed interim order passed in W.A.No.1176/2023. 7. The Chief Commissioner while rejecting the contention regarding the jurisdiction has noticed the detailed interim order passed in W.A.No.1176/2023. 7. Insofar as the contention regarding the absence of notice, finding is recorded at Para No.9 that notices were issued by RPAD. No ground is made out to hold that notice is not served. 8. Insofar as the contention regarding Bye-law No.9.2, the said aspect has specifically referred to at Para No.10 of the order specifically referring to petitioner's application for plan relating to site measuring 128.32 Sq. Mtrs. The said order has been challenged before this Court. 9. During the pendency of this proceedings, this Court had directed for a spot inspection and to file a report. On the basis of such order passed on 23.11.2024, spot inspection was conducted and the respondent - BBMP has placed before the Court the inspection report by way of memo dated 15.01.2025. Document No.1 along with the memo is the spot inspection report which provides detailed measurements regarding deviation. 10. It is not in dispute that the said Mahazar prepared by the respondent - BBMP is in the presence of both sides. For all practical purposes, taking note of the mahazar prepared in the presence of parties pursuant to the order of this Court during the pendency of proceedings, the order under Section 248(3) of the Act passed must be read in terms of the deviations mentioned in the Mahazar. Accordingly, the details of deviations in the Mahazar would substitute the deviations in the order under Section 248(3) of the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents concede for such finding. 12. Insofar as the contention raised by the petitioner as regards the question of jurisdiction, the appellate authority has rightly recorded a finding relying on the interim order passed in W.A.No.1176/2023. In light of such finding, wherein the order of the learned Single Judge holding against the BBMP as regards jurisdiction being stayed by the order passed in W.A.No.1176/2023, no occasion arises to enter into the question of jurisdiction. 13. Insofar as the contention relating to Note 12 to Bye-Law 9.2, it must be noticed that during the pendency of this proceedings, this Court by order dated 26.03.2025 had directed opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the petitioner regarding his contention relating to bye-law No.9.2. 13. Insofar as the contention relating to Note 12 to Bye-Law 9.2, it must be noticed that during the pendency of this proceedings, this Court by order dated 26.03.2025 had directed opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the petitioner regarding his contention relating to bye-law No.9.2. Pursuant to such order, proceedings have been conducted by the respondent - BBMP in the presence of petitioner. Copy of the proceedings dated 26.03.2025 and 21.04.2025 has been filed before the Court and advert to the hearing on 24.04.2025 under the Chairmanship of the Zonal Commissioner. The respondent - BBMP in the proceedings has opined that the calculation of set back in terms of BBMP Bye-Law is as regards to the property for which sanction plan has been applied i.e., sanction plan having been applied for a single site. The contention of the petitioner that the entirety of plot No.14 must be taken note of for the purpose of calculating setback has been rejected. 14. The respondent - BBMP in its proceedings has opined that Plot No.14 having been trifurcated, sanction plan has been obtained only for Site No.14/1 and accordingly, set back would have to be calculated in respect of Site No.14/1 alone. There is no reason for differing with such stand of the respondent-BBMP as it is not in dispute that the sanction plan is with respect to the trifurcated portion of Site No.14/1 and not for the entirety of Site No.14. If that were to so, calculation of setback in terms of bye-law No. 9.2 is with respect to the proposed single site for which sanction plan has been obtained. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the appellate authority as regards such contention as well. 15. In light of the same, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed while making it clear that the deviation referred to that is required to be taken note of by the respondent - Authority for the purpose of executing the order under Section 248(3) of the Act is the deviation pointed out in the mahazar conducted pursuant to the order of this Court viz., mahazar dated 13.12.2024. With such observations, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 16. With such observations, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo of undertaking which reads as follows: "That without prejudice to the case of the petitioner, the petitioner undersigned undertakes to remove the deviations in his building at site No 14/1 situated at 1 st Main Road, Vinayaka Layout, 3 rd Stage, Vijayanagar, Bangalore and bring it in conformity with the BBMP Act 2020, BBMP building Bye Laws, 2003 and sanctioned plan No BBMP/Ad.Com/WST/0494/19-20 dated 03-10-2019. The petitioner also undertakes that during the exercise of removing the deviations if it necessitates filing any application before the jurisdictional BBMP office, he shall do so in accordance with law. The property in question is a commercial cum hostel building and presently the tenants are occupying the premises. The petitioner has to terminate the rental agreement/s with the tenants and take possession of the subject property in accordance with law and then take steps to remove the deviations to bring in conformity with the sanction plan. The above exercise requires considerable time and hence this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to provide sufficient time including grace period to the petitioner for undergoing the exercise of removing the deviations so as to bring it in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and equity." 17. Necessary affidavit containing the undertaking to remove deviations to be filed within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In light of the length of litigation, the petitioner is granted 6 months time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to carry out removal of deviations. 18. Needless to state that insofar as the tenants are concerned, the Apex Court in Special Leave Appeal No.12199-12200 of 2025 was considering the order of the High Court, whereby, there was a direction for the tenants to be evicted. 19. It must be noticed that the tenants are claiming to be the owners of the property. When the building itself is found to be illegal, the tenants rights are only secondary and cannot supersede the rights of owner so as to obstruct exercise of statutory power by BBMP. 19. It must be noticed that the tenants are claiming to be the owners of the property. When the building itself is found to be illegal, the tenants rights are only secondary and cannot supersede the rights of owner so as to obstruct exercise of statutory power by BBMP. The respondent-BBMP while carrying out demolition and following the procedure prescribed under Section 356 of the Act, is to intimate the tenants who would necessarily be bound by the order on merits passed insofar as proceedings under Section 248 of the Act is concerned. The tenants should be given notice only in order to facilitate removal of their belongings. The tenants cannot claim any further rights, as the landlord has been represented and has prosecuted the proceedings in a bonafide manner. Accordingly, tenants would necessarily have to give way to the action initiated under Section 356 of the Act. 20. In light of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 , the Apex Court has specifically directed that it is the duty of all other authorities to facilitate action by the Municipal Authority. Such observation of the Apex Court is found at para 21 (viii) and in accordance with which the respondent-BBMP may seek assistance of other State agencies as well in process of implementing the order under Section 356 of the Act. Needless to state that the petitioner may furnish list of tenants to respondent-BBMP to enable them to execute the order under Section 356 of the Act. 21. Accordingly, the petition disposed off.