The question nobody asks
Before a parent pays the first month’s rent at a PG or hostel, there is a document question that almost never gets asked: in the municipal record, is that building classified as residential or non-residential? In law, that is where everything begins.
On 10 September 2026 the Supreme Court widened the scope of its pan-India monitoring of building-byelaw and land-use violations. The Amicus Curiae told the Court that the same violations arise in gyms, coaching centres and BPOs. The Court directed civic authorities in the capitals of all States and Union Territories to report on residential premises being put to non-residential use, and permitted the Delhi High Court to continue its own monitoring.
The matter is pending. What follows is not a conclusion about any building. It is an explanation of a regulatory framework that is already settled law.
Later development (22 September 2026). In a further order in the same matter, the Court directed that, for the present, authorities should give priority to ensuring that no commercial activity takes place in areas specifically shown as residential where only residential use is permitted, and that premises found in such use should, “in the first instance, be sealed”. In areas not clearly designated for a particular use, the status quo is not to be disturbed for now. The same order records that the Jaipur Development Authority had issued notices to coaching institutes to shift to areas earmarked for coaching. The matter is next listed on 23 November 2026.
What “land use” actually means
Every city has a Master Plan. The Master Plan assigns every parcel of land to a category — residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, green belt. That category governs what may lawfully be built there and what may lawfully be carried on there.
To run a commercial activity on land zoned residential, permission for change of land use is required from the development authority or the municipal body. Activity carried on without it is unauthorised use — and ownership of the property is no answer to that. A person may own a house entirely and still not be entitled to use it as a commercial establishment.
The classification is not paperwork for its own sake. It is the peg on which the safety requirements hang. Occupancy load, number of exits, staircase width, fire-fighting provision, parking, sanitation — all of these are prescribed by reference to the building’s sanctioned use. A structure approved for a household of four, occupied by forty students, is not merely in breach of a form. It is carrying a load the design never contemplated.
Why these approvals exist: when a house becomes a hostel
An approval is, in substance, a capacity check. A residential colony is planned for a certain population — a few people per plot, living as households. Its sewer lines, water supply, electricity network, lanes and parking are sized for that number. When a house becomes a PG, hostel or coaching centre, the number of people on the plot can multiply several times over, while nothing underneath is redesigned:
- Sanitation and water. Sewer lines, tanks and connections sized for one household now serve dozens of people. Blockages, overflow and shortages follow — for the building and for its neighbours.
- Electricity. A connection is sanctioned for a particular load. Dozens of rooms with coolers, air-conditioners, geysers and chargers draw far more than a family home. Overloaded wiring and meter boards are a recognised fire risk.
- Lanes and parking. Two-wheelers, delivery vehicles and visitors fill streets laid out for a handful of cars.
- Fire safety and escape. The National Building Code of India, 2016 (Part 4, Fire and Life Safety), applied through State fire rules and local byelaws, classifies buildings by occupancy. A family dwelling, a lodging house or dormitory, and an educational building fall in different classes, with different requirements for exits, staircases, fire resistance and fire-fighting equipment. A house converted without approval usually keeps the escape design of a family home.
- Emergency access. Setbacks and approach-road requirements exist so that a fire tender or ambulance can reach the building and the people inside can get out. A narrow lane lined with parked vehicles may allow neither when it matters.
That is why unapproved conversion is a safety question, not a paperwork question. The approval stage is where someone checks whether the building — and the neighbourhood — can carry the new load.
What past incidents show
Stated factually, and without comment on anyone’s liability (criminal proceedings in several of these matters are pending):
- Surat, 24 May 2019. A fire at Takshashila Arcade reached a coaching class run from a makeshift structure on the terrace; 22 students died. Reports at the time said the only way up was a wooden staircase, and that the terrace structure and an upper floor lacked approval. Coaching centres in Gujarat were then ordered shut pending fire-safety inspections.
- Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, 15 June 2023. A fire, reportedly starting at an electricity meter board, broke out in a building where about 250 students were attending classes. Students climbed down ropes to escape; a few suffered minor injuries. The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognisance the next day, asking the fire service to examine the fire certificates, and the municipal corporation the sanctioned building plans, of coaching centres across Delhi. A police status report later told the Court that only 67 of 583 coaching institutes in Delhi held a fire-service certificate; on 25 July 2023 the Court directed closure of those operating without a fire NOC.
- Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, 27 July 2024. Rainwater flooded the basement of a civil-services coaching centre; three aspirants died. Officials said the basement was permitted only for parking and storage but was being used as a library. On 5 August 2024 the Supreme Court (Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan) took suo motu cognisance of safety compliance in coaching centres, stating that none should be allowed to operate without meticulous compliance with fire-safety and other safety norms.
- Satya Niketan, Delhi, 6 September 2026. A decades-old multi-storey building housing a students’ PG collapsed; at least six people died. An FIR has been registered and a magisterial inquiry ordered. The Supreme Court’s 10 September order followed four days later.
The common thread is not bad luck. Each building was being used in a way its approvals did not cover — more people, a different activity, an unapproved floor or basement.
Why the problem has grown
Demand for rooms and classrooms concentrates around colleges and coaching hubs faster than purpose-built hostels are built. Converting an existing house is quicker and cheaper than constructing a compliant building, and rooms let individually earn more than a house let to one family. Enforcement has tended to follow incidents rather than precede them — the Delhi figure of 67 certified institutes out of 583 surfaced only after a fire.
In Kota, much of the hostel, PG and coaching economy runs in colonies originally laid out for families. After the July 2024 Delhi deaths, Kota’s fire and municipal teams inspected coaching premises and basement libraries in areas including Coral Park, Jawahar Nagar and Landmark City. The city’s Chief Fire Officer was reported as saying that many had a single entry and exit and lacked fire-safety systems, and that basements were to be used only for parking. The questions above apply to every converted building in the city.
The document set behind a compliant building
Nomenclature varies between States and municipal bodies, and this list is not a guarantee of legality in any given case. Broadly, however, a lawfully constructed and lawfully occupied building will have:
1. A sanctioned building plan. Approved by the municipal body or development authority. The operative question is not whether a plan exists but whether the building as constructed conforms to it.
2. A land-use position consistent with actual use. What the Master Plan says the plot is, and — where the use is commercial — whether change of land use has been permitted.
3. A completion / occupancy certificate. The certificate by which the competent authority records that the building was completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and is fit for occupation. A very large number of buildings in use have never obtained one.
4. A fire safety NOC. Required above prescribed heights and for prescribed occupancy classes. It brings with it the substantive requirements — two means of escape, an unobstructed staircase, extinguishers in date, water provision, accessible roof.
5. Adequate ingress and egress. A single narrow staircase serving a densely occupied floor is the single most common and most consequential defect.
6. For coaching premises, a separate regulatory layer. Rajasthan has dedicated legislation for coaching centres — the Rajasthan Coaching Centres (Control and Regulation) Act, 2025. This piece does not go into its individual provisions.
What this order does not decide
- It declares no PG, hostel or coaching institute illegal. It calls for reports.
- The 10 September order itself ordered no eviction, demolition or sealing. The 22 September direction on sealing concerns areas specifically shown as residential; it tells authorities where to prioritise enforcement and is not a finding about any particular building.
- These are interlocutory steps in a live matter. Predicting the outcome would be improper.
- Building byelaws are State and city specific. The precise provisions applicable to any particular municipal area must be confirmed locally before they are relied on.
It is also worth being precise about reach: the 10 September direction is addressed to civic bodies in State and UT capitals. Kota is not a capital, and the 22 September order does not name Kota; how far its direction will be applied beyond the cities before the Court is not clear from the order. But the legal framework the order operates on — Master Plan classification, change of land use, building byelaws, occupancy certification — applies to every municipal area independently of this order, and has for decades.
The practical reading
For a parent, a tenant or a student, the usable takeaway is small and concrete. The building’s sanctioned use is a fact that exists in a municipal record, and the gap between that fact and the building’s actual use is a legal question, not a matter of opinion. Asking about the occupancy certificate and the fire NOC before signing is not an accusation; it is ordinary diligence, and a refusal to answer is itself informative.
Complaints about construction and land use go to the building section of the municipal corporation or development authority; complaints about fire safety go to the fire service. Both should be made in writing, and a receiving acknowledgement should be obtained and kept. That acknowledgement is what makes any later step possible.
FAQ
Is running a PG in a residential house automatically illegal? No. The questions are what the sanctioned land use of the plot is, what conditions the applicable byelaws attach to that use, and whether those conditions are met. It turns on the facts of each property.
What follows from there being no occupancy certificate? It means the competent authority has not certified that the building was completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. What consequences follow depends on the applicable byelaws and on what the authority does — there is no single fixed outcome.
Who regulates this? The municipal corporation or development authority for building and land use; the fire service for fire safety; and, for coaching premises in Rajasthan, the framework under the 2025 coaching-centres legislation.
Can a tenant or student complain? Information about a byelaw violation can generally be placed before the competent authority by any person. What the authority does with it depends on its jurisdiction and the applicable rules.
Does the Supreme Court’s order apply to Kota? The direction of 10.09.2026 is addressed to civic bodies in State and UT capitals. Kota is not one, and the further order of 22.09.2026 does not name Kota. The underlying legal framework, however, applies to all municipal areas regardless.
📎 Authority relied on
Loganathan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, MA Diary No. 17103/2026, Supreme Court, order dated 10.09.2026, bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan; earlier orders dated 25.03.2026 and 05.08.2026. Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha. Further order dated 22.09.2026; next listed 23.11.2026. General framework: land-use classification under the applicable Master Plan, municipal building byelaws, the sanctioned building plan, occupancy/completion certification, fire safety NOC (National Building Code of India, 2016, Part 4, as applied by State fire rules and local byelaws), and Article 21.
Incidents and follow-up referred to: Surat fire, 24.05.2019; Mukherjee Nagar fire, 15.06.2023, and the Delhi High Court’s suo motu proceedings (16.06.2023; closure direction 25.07.2023); Old Rajinder Nagar basement flooding, 27.07.2024, and the Supreme Court’s suo motu cognisance by order dated 05.08.2024 in Coaching Federation of India v. Government of NCT of Delhi, Diary No. 30149/2024; Satya Niketan collapse, 06.09.2026.
This is general legal awareness, not legal advice. Legal outcomes depend on facts, documents, law, forum, evidence, limitation and judicial discretion — no outcome is guaranteed. Consult a qualified advocate on your own facts.
Adv. Prakhar Gupta — enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Enrolment No. R/2196/2020. This page shares legal awareness/education only; it is not advertisement or solicitation of work.
Parts of this content (images/voice/summary) were created or edited using AI tools.