Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Be that as it may, the so-called trend that is alleged to be emerging from a barrage of such notices issued to several occupants of buildings across Mumbai is noticed only when the draftsman sit down to draft a petition for such occupants. In this case, the alleged 'trend' went unnoticed until 12th October 2015.

8. We have also not been shown that from 5th May 2004, when the offer was allegedly made, and after the alleged dismissal of the Suit and pendency of the appeal, the occupants have done anything to maintain or repair the old structure. We have not been shown any record of the tenants seeking the assistance of a competent court to carry out tenantable repairs at their own cost and expenses, or that they called on landlady to do so. It is very easy to say that 9th July 2019 Ramesh s/o Nathubhai Patel & Ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 910-oswp1500-16-J.doc municipal officials can be 'managed' by landlords and owners through influential and powerful persons and that, at their behest, such notices are issued. If we were to accept such allegations in every petition that is brought before us, possibly every such notice would have to be struck down. Far from it, when we are questioning and demanding accountability from the occupants/tenants as well, reminding them of their statutory rights and equally duties, the only defence is that the occupants cannot repair somebody else's structure to such an extent that it will undergo a complete change. We have never suggested extensive structural repairs to be carried out; we are aware of the position in law. When we remind the tenants and occupants of their obligation, we are only referring to tenantable repairs to a structure or building to keep it habitable and fit for occupation. In paragraphs 2 to 8, we have not been shown any such material. We will return to the precise legal position in this regard a little later in this judgment.

11. The petitioners rely upon a report of a Structural Engineer/Auditor styling himself as an 'Architect - Engineer - R.C.C. Specialist - Government Approved Valuer'. His report is dated 10th October 2015. In the covering letter addressed to the petitioners, this gentleman very clearly says that he strongly recommends carrying out necessary repairs to the supporting structural members consisting of RCC columns, beams and slabs of the building as a whole, for external leakage, rather than attending to problems individually. He says this on 10th October 2015, and in his report, which refers to the inspection of every single flat. He finds structural distress or defects in a few flats. He says clearly that the building is a reinforced cement concrete (RCC) framed structure and for healthy condition of its various members, namely, slabs, beams and columns, both from inside and outside, in all rooms and in service areas like staircases, passages, etc., structural repairs are a must. It is only then that structural stability will be achieved. Even then, with the above observations and opinion, in the preceding paragraphs he concludes, as under:

"8. CONCLUSION:- Over all condition of the building with respect to R.C.C. Structure will be safe, stable if repaired immediately. The structural distress is mainly due to leakages and non-maintenance. The chhajja portions, RCC ceiling RCC Beams and slabs of balconies, and few RCC Columns supporting members as described in details needs utmost attention and repairs, to protect the structure. It may become dangerous and may cause casualty of life and property 9th July 2019 Ramesh s/o Nathubhai Patel & Ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 910-oswp1500-16-J.doc if not attended in time. Hence it is absolutely necessary to attend to leakages and repairs to structural distress simultaneously as this will avoid creating joints between old and new surfaces. All drainage pipelines need to be checked separately as due to seepage of water and atmospheric changes will lead to fresh corrosions in structural members and this process will be continued forever. If we attend only the structural distress in phase wise and not attend to leakages we can expect structural distress again.

21. Mr. Saraogi's arguments overlook the fact that on 7th July 2014 the Municipal Corporation called upon the owner and the occupiers to carry out structural repairs and strengthening by using appropriate material to the affected part of the building with consultation of a licensed structural engineer and to carry out repairs and remedial measures and thereupon submit the certificate. We do not think that this 9th July 2019 Ramesh s/o Nathubhai Patel & Ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors 910-oswp1500-16-J.doc provision can be read as an obligation on the Corporation to necessarily carry out the structural audit and to issue a structural stability certificate. It is the obligation of the owner or the occupier, for they reside in the structure and it is for their safety and for protecting their interests that the legislature stepped in. If the owner has neglected the building and has not maintained it at all, the occupiers have this opportunity in addition to their rights to approach a Structural Engineer and to have an inspection carried out earlier and pursuant to his inspection and report, a certificate to be forwarded to the Commissioner. However, this is an added duty and obligation. The recommended repairs have to be carried out by the person seeking intervention of a Structural Engineer and it is only then the structural stability certificate will be issued by him. The obligation is to produce the structural stability certificate before the Commissioner. If that is not done, then the Commissioner can independently act and in terms of the discretionary powers conferred on him by the MMC Act.