Bombay High Court
Baumont Foods Private Limited And Ors vs Minicipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 18 May, 2017
Author: C.V. Bhadang
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
1 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) No. 14198 of 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) No. 14199 of 2017
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) No. 14198 of 2017.
Baumont Foods Pvt Ltd & Ors ..Appellants.
Vs
Municipal Corporation Gr.Mumbai ..Respondents.
Mr. Gautam Joshi, Senior Advocate a/with Piyush Raheja
a/with Mr Bhushan Shah, Ms Karishma Moha and Ms
Neha Lakshaman i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for the
appellants.
Ms. Madhuri More, Advocate for MCGB-Respondent
No.1.
Mr Mustafa Doctor a/with Mr. Surya Abhishet and Mr.
Abhijeet Deshmukh i/by M/s Hariani & Co. for
Respondent No. 2 and 4.
Mr Harish Pandya Ms Aradhana Bhansali, Ms Gargi
Panwar i/by Rajani Associates for Respondent Nos. 6
to 11.
Mr Inderpal Singh Nirmale for Respondent No. 12 to 22.
CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
DATE : 18th May, 2017.
(VACATION JUDGE) ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 2 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc JUDGMENT.
1) The appellants are challenging the order dated 6th May, 2017 passed by the learned City Civil Court at Bombay in Draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 5177 of 2017. By the impugned order the learned City Civil Court has refused to grant ad-interim relief to the appellants/plaintiffs. The notice of motion is made returnable on 19th July, 2017. By consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2) Brief facts are that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed a suit challenging a notice dated 28 th April, 2017 issued by the first respondent Mumbai Municipal Corporation ("the Corporation" for short) under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (M.M.C.Act for short) ordering demolition of the first, second and third floors of Somani Building situated at Bombay Samachar Marg, Mumbai. The case made out in the plaint is that the appellants have acquired sub-::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
3 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc tenancy right of the respective premises on the third floor of the said building from the third respondent through Basant Kumar Somani Memorial Trust ("tenant" for short), which in turn had acquired tenancy rights from the second respondent i.e. Dr. J.K. Somani Public Charity Trust ("the landlord" for short). It is claimed that the said tenancy is valid and subsisting. On 30 th November, 2016 there was an outbreak of fire on the second floor of the Somani building which spread to the third floor. The fire could be brought under control and dowsed after more than ten hours on 1 st December, 2016 causing damage to the substantial part of the said building.
3) On 1st December, 2016 the Corporation addressed a letter to the owners/occupiers asking them to appoint a structural consultant. On 5 th December, 2016 the landlord submitted a structural audit report from K.R.Trivedi & Associates who concluded that the said building should be demolished. Sometime in ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 4 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc December, 2016 the appellants and the other sub- tenants of the building (respondent No. 6 to 22) appointed Ellora Consultancy Services to conduct an independent structural audit of the building. The Ellora Consultancy Services submitted its report dated 16 th December, 2016 to the Corporation based on the external inspection finding that the building is in a repairable condition, however, reserving a final conclusion after examining the internal damage.
4) It is undisputed that the appellants and the other sub-tenants of the building have vacated the respective portions soon after the incident of fire.
5) The Ellora Consultancy Services after internal inspection submitted a detailed structural audit report on 10th January, 2017 classifying the building as C2-A i.e. one which is repairable.
6) The internal correspondence of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 5 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc Corporation showed that the concerned Executive Engineer had opined on 18th February, 2017 that a notice ought to be issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act for repairs of the building on the basis of the report of Ellora Consultancy Services. Thus, according to the appellants, even the Corporation was maintaining that the building is in repairable condition. Further, according to the appellants, on 28 th February, 2017 the representative of the second respondent were demolishing a wall of the building without consent of sub-tenants and occupiers. The Corporation addressed a notice to the landlord on 2 nd March, 2017 directing them to cease from the unauthorized demolition of the wall. Sometime in March, 2017 the appellants learnt through an RTI querry that the landlord obtained another structural audit report from one Shashank Mehendale & Associates on 12th January, 2017 stating that the building is in a repairable condition. There is yet another report from the Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute, Mumbai ( "VJTI" for short) dated ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 6 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc 14th March, 2014 stating that the upper floor of the building is beyond logical repairs. On 29 th March, 2017 the appellants obtained another structural audit report from A.D. Shintre Consultants stating that the building can be made structurally safe and sound.
7) On 13th April, 2017 the appellants approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1081 of 2017 seeking protection of the Somani Building before onset of monsoon. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Building Proposals) opined that the matter must be referred to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in view of the contradictory structural audit reports. Finally on 28 th April, 2017 the Corporation issued a notice asking the landlord to pull down first floor walls/portion of second and third floor of the said building under section 354 of the MMC Act. In that view of the matter, writ petition No. 1081 of 2017 was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to pursue appropriate remedy before the Civil Court. It is in pursuance thereof that the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 7 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc appellants filed a suit challenging the impugned notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act. In the notice of motion the appellants sought the following reliefs:-
(a) Defendant No.1 be ordered and directed by this Hon'ble Court to submit the (a) Shashank Report;(b) Ellora Report; and © VJTI Report; (d) Shintre Report to TAC for its independent consideration and review;
(b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present suit, the concerned officers, staff members, representatives, contractors, servants and agents of Defendant No. 1 to 5 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner implementing impugned notice or taking any steps whatsoever pursuant thereto and/or from demolishing / damaging the Somani Building or any part thereof;
(c) That pending the final hearing and disposal of the present suit, the Plaintiffs be permitted at their costs and expenses at this stage to carry out the following work in the suit building forthwith;
(i) To prop the entire suit building
(ii) To provide a temporary supporting arrangement to repair the standing portion of the suit building;
::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
8 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc
(iii) To cover the entire suit building by a pandal to protect it from monsoon rains.
(iv) To remove the debris lying at the premises of the suit building.
(d) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in
terms of prayer Ia) to (c)
hereinabove;
(e) For costs of this Notice of Motion;and
(f) For such further and other reliefs as
this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case
may require;
8) It was contended on behalf of the appellants
that the Municipal Corporation has not followed the guidelines issued by this Court vide judgment dated 23rd June, 2014 in Original Side Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1135 of 2014 while issuing the impugned notice. The first respondent claimed that the impugned notice is issued as per the provisions of law and looking to the ensuing monsoon season there is likelihood of the building, falling down, as the building is in a dilapidated condition. The judgment in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 is not applicable to the building where the tenants have vacated their premises. ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
9 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc
9) The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 also claimed that the guidelines on which reliance is placed by the petitioners are not applicable.
10) The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prayer clause (c) in the draft notice of motion cannot be granted at the ad-interim stage. The learned Trial Court found that the appellants having already vacated their tenanted premises which were located on the third floor of the building cannot claim protection of the guidelines issued by this Court in O.S. Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014. The learned Trial Court found that the guidelines are applicable in a situation where the tenants of a dilapidated building are not ready to vacate the tenanted premises. The learned Trial Court further noticed the judgment of this Court dated 24th July, 2015 in Writ Petition No. 136 of 2006 by which it is clarified that, in an extraordinary situation where sufficient time is not available, the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 10 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc Corporation can proceed with the notice under Section 354 of the Act without referring the matter to the TAC.
11) I have heard Mr Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/appellants and Mr. Mustafa Doctor learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. I have also heard Mrs. Madhuri More for the first respondent Corporation and Mr. Harish Pandya for Respondent No. 6 to 11 and Mr Inderpal Singh Nirmale for Respondent Nos. 12 to 22.
12) It is submitted by Shri Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that all that the appellants are seeking is that the Corporation should refer the matter to the TAC as there are conflicting reports by the structural auditors. He pointed out that there are two reports submitted by the appellants and three by the landlords which depict a contradictory position about the condition of the building as to whether it is in a repairable condition or not. It is submitted that the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 11 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc Competent Authority of the Corporation had made a volte face on their stand in this regard. It is submitted that if the existing structure is demolished, it will seriously affect the rights and interest of the petitioners who are admittedly the sub-tenants of the third floor of the building. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Corporation has not yet classified the building. It is submitted that the Corporation was required to follow the guidelines as laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1135 of 2014. It is submitted that even otherwise this Court can always direct and require the Corporation to refer the matter to the TAC which is a high level expert body, if there is a situation where there are conflicting expert opinions/reports. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the amended provisions of Section 354 of the MMC Act (as amended by Maharashtra Act No.22 of 2017 with effect from 19 th January, 2017.) It is submitted that as per sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the MMC Act before issuing notice the Commissioner has to call upon the owner of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 12 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc building to furnish a statement in writing stating the names of the occupiers which has not been followed in this case. It is submitted that under section 499 of the MMC Act the tenants are entitled to take appropriate steps for reconstruction of the building and as such valuable 'vested rights' of the appellants are involved and are likely to be jeoparadised if the impugned notices are executed. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gajanan Ramrao vs. Municipal Corporation City Nagpur & Ors (MANU/MH/0534/2006) in order to submit that merely because the building appears to be in a dilapidated condition did not justify the order of demolition. The learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel respondent No. 6 to 11 and respondent Nos. 12 to 22 have supported the appellants.
13) On the contrary, it is submitted by Shri Mustafa Doctor, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2 and 4 that the guidelines issued by ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 13 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 have rightly been held to be not applicable by the learned Trial Court. The learned Counsel would submit that the said guidelines have been explained away in a subsequent decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 136 of 2006 ( Bharat Choksey & Ors Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors) decided on 24/7/2015. It is pointed out that this Court has held that the said guidelines cannot be read as if the same are provisions of a Statute. In few cases, where there is an emergent / extraordinary situation, the Corporation can take action and it is not possible to take a view that the Corporation cannot make a departure from the guidelines.
14) The learned Counsel has referred to the various Reports in order to submit that there is a clear case made out for issuance of the notice under section 354 of the MMC Act. The learned Counsel has pointed out that, even on facts, this is not a case where a ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 14 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc reference to the T.A.C.would be necessary. It is submitted that the appellants have long vacated the premises on the third floor which was destroyed by the fire and the appellants thus cannot place reliance on the guidelines issued by this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014.
15) It is submitted that the reliance placed on the amended provisions of Section 354 of the MMC Act is also misplaced, inasmuch as there is no dispute about the tenants/occupants of the subject building and the appellants having already vacated the building. It is pointed out that the impugned notice takes care of the rights of the appellants and other tenants/sub-tenants. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing the ad-interim relief.
16) I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. The appellants who were occupying the third floor of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 15 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc building have already vacated the said premises. Admittedly, there was an incident of fire in the building on 30th November, 2016 which came under control and was eventually doused after about ten hours i.e. on 1 st December, 2016, causing damage to the substantial part of the building. It has come on record in the various reports of the Experts that the the building is a load bearing structure which is more than 75 years old. It would be significant to note that the appellants had filed Writ Petition (L) No. 1081/2017 seeking a direction for issuing a notice under section 354 of the MMC Act. That Petition was disposed of on 4 th May, 2017 in view of the fact that the Corporation in the meantime had issued the impugned notice on 28th April, 2017.
17) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has raised a three fold challenge in the appeal. Firstly, it is contended that the impugned notice is bad in law as the Corporation was required to refer the matter to the T.A.C. in view of the guidelines ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 16 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc issued by this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014. Secondly, it is contended that if the building is demolished under the garb of implementation of the impugned notice, valuable rights of the appellants would be affected. Such demolition would affect the eventual set backs which may be permissible at the time of reconstruction. Thirdly, it is contended that there is non-compliance with the amended provisions of Section 354 of the MMC Act.
18) In my considered view, the submissions as made cannot be accepted. Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 was filed by the Corporation seeking direction against the State of Maharashtra and the concerned police personnel to take steps for forcible eviction of the occupants of the building which was the subject- matter of dispute in the said petition. The Corporation had inter-alia sought issuance of proper guidelines for removal of "non-cooperating occupants" of dilapidated and dangerous buildings. According to the Corporation, ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 17 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc such guidelines were necessary so as to avoid any injury, incidence of loss of lives of the occupants of the building as well as the occupants of the adjoining structures and passersby. This Court has noticed that sometime the owners/builders are non-cooperative while in some cases the tenants / occupants do not cooperate. It can thus be seen that it was in the context of such a situation that this Court had given certain directions in the nature of guidelines to be followed by the Corporation.
19) Thus, at least, prima facie, at this stage, (as this court in this appeal is considering the question of ad-interim relief) it cannot be accepted that the guidelines would apply to a situation where the tenants / sub-tenants/occupants of the building in question have already vacated the premises in their occupation. That apart in a subsequent petition namely Writ Petition No. 136 of 2006 a Division Bench of this Court has inter-alia held that in a given case the Corporation ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 18 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc can act and it is not in every case that the compliance with the guidelines is mandatory. Obviously, the question would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned City Civil Court has found and to my mind rightly so that the guidelines issued in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 cannot be called into aid in this case.
20) It would now be necessary to make a brief reference to the various reports of the structural engineers/experts. In the report of K.R.Trivedi & Associates dated 5th December, 2016 it has been noted as under :
(i) The structure is in extremely endangered condition and not fit for human entry and habitation.
(ii) The structure should be demolished carefully. No person should enter the structure. It can be fatal to human life.
(iii) While carrying out the demolition care should be taken to prevent damage to the adjoining structures.
21) In the report of Ellora Consultancy Services the condition of the building is recorded as under :::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
19 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc
(a) Ground and 1st floor found in good condition, no damage due to fire noticed.
(b) 2nd floor slab damaged at kitchen / pantry area.
(c) 3rd floor part collapsed due to fire.
(d) Roof damaged due to fire to be removed immediately and replaced.
The report finds that the building is in a repairable condition and is classified as C2-A category which means that the building is to be vacated and/or partially demolished requiring major repairs.
22) In the VJTI report, it has been found that Because of fire, inside part of upper floors have collapsed on the first floor. All structural elements of these floors have lost their strength because of fire.
External wall is free -standing above first floor and heavy vegetation growth is observed on external face of the building. The report finds that the upper floors of the building are beyond "logical repairs".
23) In the report of A.D.Shintre, Consultant, it has been found that the building can be certainly made structurally safe by effecting repairs. ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
20 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc
24) In the report of Shashank Mehendale & Associates it has been found that the structure which is a old load bearing structure with wooden members which are burnt badly. The Load bearing walls of the portion of the building which is still standing are showing cracks at some locations. Building is presently evacuated.
25) Apart from the aforesaid reports, I have also seen the photographs of the building and at least, prima facie at this stage, it appears that the upper floors of the building appear to be substantially damaged/destroyed due to fire, the photographs show the skeletal outside walls standing.
26) It was pointed out on behalf of the appellant that the Corporation has made a volte face on its stand as to whether the building needs repairs or needs to be demolished. In my considered view, the submission ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 21 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc cannot be accepted. This is because there is a report of the inspection carried out by the Corporation on 31 st March, 2017 which is produced at page 503 of the compilation in which the following observation is made:
As the said building is in dilapidated and dangerous condition, it may collapse at any point of time. After considering the safety of adjoining structures and passerby on road. It is proposed to demolish the dangerous portion of the said building upto ground floor level and safeguard the remaining structure immediately.
27) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has referred to the internal correspondence / submissions of the Corporation dated 18 th April, 2017 in which in view of the reports of Ellora Consultancy and A.D. Shintre Consultant, it was proposed by the Deputy Chief Engineer (BP) CT to refer the matter to TAC. As noticed earlier, even prior to 18th April, 2017 i.e. on 31st March, 2017 in the inspection report it was found that the building is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and it may collapse at any point of time. Thus in the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
22 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc given facts of the case prima facie it cannot be accepted that the guidelines in WP (L) No.1135/2014 would apply once the appellants have vacated the premises in their possession.
28) In so far as the second ground of the rights of the appellants being affected, is concerned, the impugned notice requires the landlord to take the following measures to avoid mishap or loss of human life and property "To pull down first floor walls remaining walls / portion of second and third floor of the building known as "J.K.Somani Building" situated at British Hotel Lane, Fort, Mumbai under the supervision of a Licensesed Structural Engineer and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom.
29) It can thus be seen that the impugned notice does not require the demolition/removal of the ground floor structure. Furthermore, the note No. 5 appended to the notice makes it clear that the status of tenancy rights of the tenants will not change due to issuance of ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 23 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc this notice. Thus, the contention that the valuable rights of the appellants are likely to be affected if the notice is implemented, particularly in view of the sets back which may be available at the time of reconstruction cannot prima facie be accepted as the ground floor is not going to be affected by the impugned notice.
30) This takes me to the submission based on the amended provisions of Section 354 of the Act. Sub- section (3) (4) and (5) were added by the Amending Act No.22 of 2017 which read thus:
"(3) If it shall appear to the Commissioner that any building is dangerous and needs to be pulled down under sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall call upon the owner, before issuing notice thereunder, to furnish a statement in writing signed by the owner stating therein the names of the occupiers of the building known to him or from his record, the area in occupation and location of premises in occupation, possession of each of the respective occupiers or tenants, as the case may be.
(4) If he fails to furnish the statement as required by sub-section (3) within the stipulated period, then the Commissioner ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::
24 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc shall make a list of the occupants of the said building and carpet area of the premises in their respective occupation and possession alongwith the details of location. (5) The action taken under this section shall not affect the inter se rights of the owners or tenants or occupiers, including right of re-occupation in any manner."
31) Prima facie it can be seen that sub-section (3) of section 354 of the MMC Act aims at preempting/preventing any subsequent dispute as to the occupiers of the building which may have relevance as to the rights of such tenants/occupants in the event of reconstruction. Prima facie this may not apply to a situation where either there is no dispute as to the names of the tenants/occupants of the building(as in the present case) and/or when such occupants have already vacated the premises. Sub-section (5) of section 354 of the MMC Act would make it explicit that the action taken under the said section shall not affect the inter se rights of the occupants in any manner. Thus, in my considered view the contention based on ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 25 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc non-compliance with the amended provisions of section 354 of the MMC Act cannot be accepted.
32) In the case of Gajanan Ramrao (cited supra) a notice was issued under section 289 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The Additional Commissioner had confirmed the order of the Deputy Municipal Commissioner directing demolition of a portion of the building. That was challenged before a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which petition was dismissed and the matter went in Appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench found that the petition was rejected solely on the ground that the report of the A.D.T.P. was from an expert in the field. However, it was found by the Division Bench that the report of the A.D.T.P. was not available at the time of issuance of the impugned notice nor the order passed by the Authorities disclosed consideration of the report by the Engineering staff of the Corporation. It can thus ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 26 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc be seen that the case turned on it's own facts. The question whether a particular building is dilapidated or not and whether it requires partial or complete demolition or whether the building is amenable to repairs, would always be a question of fact peculiar to a particular case.
33) The building in question is situated in a busy/crowded locality of South Bombay. Considering the ensuing monsoon season efforts have to be taken to see that no danger to public/passerby is caused. The public safety in the matter would be of paramount consideration. This is one more reason why the relief as claimed by the Appellant cannot be granted.
34) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants made an alternate submission. It is submitted that in the event this Court is not inclined to grant ad-interim relief, a licensed architect appointed ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 27 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc by the appellants may be permitted to remain present and supervise the work of the implementation of the impugned notice. In this regard, it may be mentioned that by the impugned notice the appellants have been directed to pull down the first floor walls, remaining walls, portion of the second and the third floor of the building, under the supervision of a licensed structural engineer. Thus, the impugned notice already requires the work to be done under the supervision of a licensed structural engineer. Thus, it is not possible to accede to the submission made on behalf of the appellant. However, suffice it to mention that the appellants and the licensed structural engineer appointed to supervise the work, shall strictly abide by the requirements of the impugned notice and shall ensure that the structures which are not part of the impugned notice are not affected during the course of demolition. The Corporation shall also oversee that the structures which are not part of the impugned notice are not affected. With this no case for interference is made out. In the ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 ::: 28 /28 920-aost-14198-17.doc result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. Civil Application No. (Stamp) No. 14199 of 2017 is disposed of.
(C.V. BHADANG,J) ::: Uploaded on - 25/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2017 00:01:38 :::