' The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by a notice of the respondent No,1 alleging that the apartment in possession of the petitioner was meant for residential purpose and is being used by her for commercial purposes unathorizedly.
2. Mr. Mobarak Ahmed learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the original lease between the K.D.A. And the original lessee (Dadabhai Construction Company Ltd.) Clause 8 whereof requires the lessee to construct a building and use the same for commercial purposes.
3. However, it appears that subsequently, the lessee was also allowed to construct residential flats by the K.D.A. And the building plan approved by the respondent No,1 contained permission to construct commercial shops on the ground floor and residential 'apartments on the upper storey thereafter the lessee executed sub-lessees in favour of different buyers some of whom transferred their interest to other purchasers. The petitioner is also one of such purchasers and admittedly had purchased an apartment which could be used for residential purpose according to the approved plan.
4. Against the above background, it is contended that the petitioner has been using the premises for commercial purposes alone ever since its purchase. With all respects we are of the considered view that a party which has failed to perform its obligations according to law is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. We would accordingly dismiss this petition in limine along with listed application. Nevertheless in law fairness the petitioner is free to approach any other forum for redress in accordance with law.