Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GENERAL BOWLING CORPORATION v. TOWNSHIP MOUNT LEBANON AND EDWARD ZAK (05/24/77)

decided: May 24, 1977.

GENERAL BOWLING CORPORATION, APPELLANT
v.
TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT LEBANON AND EDWARD ZAK, CHIEF INSPECTOR, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of General Bowling Corporation v. Township of Mount Lebanon and Edward Zak, Chief Inspector, General Docket No. 76-12045.

COUNSEL

David R. Levin, for appellant.

Robert L. Allman, II, with him Edwin L. Klett, K. Doyle George, and Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 280]

This appeal arises from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County dismissing appellant's complaint in mandamus to compel the granting of a building permit. We affirm.

Appellant is the tenant of a bowling alley and adjoining restaurant in Mt. Lebanon Township (Township) under a long-term lease. The contract, to which appellant has succeeded to the rights of the original tenant, provides for a twenty-five year lease with options for two additional twenty-five year periods.

Appellant decided that the building's present air conditioning system was not adequate in the summer months and contracted, at is own expense, for the installation of two supplemental air conditioning units. An application for a building permit necessary under the Building Code, Mt. Lebanon, Pa., Ordinance No.

[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 2812569]

(Code) was filed with the Township's chief inspector. The landlords notified the inspector that they held legal title to the property and that the appellant was not entitled to apply for a permit. The inspector, therefore, denied the application for a permit on the basis of Section 113.1 of the Code, which reads:

113.1 A building permit obtained by the owner or his designated and authorized agent shall be required for all buildings and structures which shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged. Said buildings and structures shall include the following:

Air conditioning systems, excluding air-conditioners designed to air condition a single room. (Emphasis added.)

Appellant filed a petition in mandamus to compel the issuance of a permit. The facts were stipulated by counsel and appellant filed a motion for peremptory judgment. The motion was denied and the complaint dismissed with a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.