The Calcutta High Court has directed the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) to immediately cease the operation of M-Bazaar, a mega garment store being run from the premises of the erstwhile Paradise Cinema Hall at 39 Bentinck Street, Kolkata. A Division Bench comprising Justice Shampa Sarkar and Justice Smita Das De held that the garment business could not be lawfully operated from the said premises without obtaining the requisite permission for change of use under Section 416 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
The Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Bench which had declined to interfere with the Certificate of Enlistment issued to Metro Retail Private Limited for operating the garment store. The Division Bench directed the Corporation to ensure that the garment business is stopped immediately and remains closed until permission to operate it is granted in accordance with law. The Court expressly stated that the business cannot be run from the said premises.
The Court noted that the premises had originally been used as a cinema hall, which constitutes an assembly building under municipal regulations, whereas M-Bazaar was being operated as a mercantile establishment. This change in use, the Court observed, had not been sanctioned through the proper legal process.
The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by Bhagwatdas Jaiswal, who challenged the Certificate of Enlistment dated April 7, 2025, issued in favour of Metro Retail Private Limited for operating a garment departmental store at the premises. The appellant alleged that the former cinema hall had been converted into a large-format garment store akin to a shopping mall without obtaining the mandatory permission for change of use under Section 416 of the KMC Act.
The Division Bench referred to the Corporation’s own inspection, which had revealed that the ground floor of the three-storeyed building had been converted into a shopping mall operating under the name M-Bazaar. The Corporation had also recorded that no sanction plan had been granted for the change in use.
The Bench traced the history of the matter, noting that in September 2024, while dealing with contempt proceedings, the Single Bench had observed that the premises was classified as a cinema hall and that the application for change of use was still pending. At that time, the Court had held that until conversion was permitted, the premises ought not to be used for another purpose. It had further clarified that merely obtaining a fire licence or Certificate of Enlistment was insufficient to lawfully operate the business.
The Division Bench relied upon these earlier observations to reject the argument that the only deficiency in the respondents’ case was proof of occupancy. The record, it observed, showed that proceedings under Sections 400(1) and 416 of the KMC Act had been initiated against the respondents.
The Special Officer (Building), KMC, had subsequently examined the alleged conversion and recorded several violations. The order noted that the ground floor, earlier used as a cinema hall, had been converted into a garment shop. The building was found to have deficiencies concerning front, rear and side open spaces as well as ground coverage. The Special Officer concluded that the change of use had been carried out without the requisite permission and was also contrary to the terms of the head lease and sub-lease, which permitted use of the premises for cinema and allied activities. Accordingly, the conversion from a cinema hall to a garment shop was disallowed.
Following this decision, the earlier Certificate of Enlistment was cancelled by the Corporation. However, the Division Bench took strong exception to the subsequent issuance of another Certificate of Enlistment on April 7, 2025. The Court noted that the application for change of use remained pending and that the fresh enlistment could not override the statutory requirement for permission under Section 416.
The Court further directed the Municipal Building Tribunal to dispose of the pending appeal filed by the private respondents against the order refusing permission for change of use within two months. The Bench emphasized that the Corporation must ensure compliance with the law and that no commercial activity may proceed from the premises until the change of use is lawfully sanctioned.