Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPL No. 3002 of 2016 submitted that though the subject structure is old, it os-wpl-3002-3011 & 2934 - 16 is in repairable condition. Petitioners are residing in the subject structure since last many years. In case the subject structure is demolished, the petitioners would be homeless and would face severe hardship. It is submitted that at the behest of the landlords, the Corporation authorities have acted contrary to the established procedure and decided to pass order to demolish the subject structure. Learned counsel submits that Technical Advisory Committee's report (TAC) is not reasonable and sound one. Said report is erroneous one, it does not consider in depth the reports submitted by the experts submitted on behalf of the petitioners. The TAC has conveniently brushed aside the opinion of the experts/structural engineers favoring that the subject structure could be repaired and need not be demolished. The guidelines, framed by the Division Bench of this court (Coram: Anoop Mohta & A. A. Sayed, JJ.) in Original Side Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., decided on 23/6/2014, were not followed. Learned counsel submitted that at this stage if a further report from reputed institute like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) is called, the petitioners would be bound by the said report irrespective of its conclusion. Learned counsel referred to the relevant reports of structural engineers, the TAC report and other relevant documents on record. The petitioners are os-wpl-3002-3011 & 2934 - 16 ready to bear the cost of repairs.

5. Mr. Udaipuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPL No. 3011 of 2016, submitted that the subject structure is in a repairable condition. According to their estimate, around Rs.30 lacks would be required for repairing the subject structure which the petitioners / occupants are ready to bear. Certain persons who are residing in the subject structure have approached the Bombay Small Causes Court claiming tenancy rights. In the submissions of the learned counsel, the landlords are not in a position to develop the subject structure. They do not have financial capacity to develop the building. In such circumstances, the petitioners are left in dark as no concrete proposal has been placed before this court for developing the subject structure after demolishing the same. It is not known to as to when the landlords would develop the subject structure. The landlords conveniently waited for numbers of years to develop the subject structure without repairing it. Learned counsel referred to the report submitted on behalf of the petitioners by the structural engineers and experts. The TAC report is erroneous one, it does not take into consideration all the necessary aspects. The decision of the Corporation, declaring the subject structure as C-1 category, was also os-wpl-3002-3011 & 2934 - 16 erroneous. Learned counsel submits that there is no existing law to protect the occupiers, owners, tenants of the privately owned structure/building in the city. After staying there for more than 50-60 years, if the structure/building is to be demolished, then the occupants must be protected.

The site is inspected by Ward staff and A.E. (B & F) F/North Ward stated in the meeting that there only are the three tenants occupying the premises. Further the test reports submitted by both R.C.C. Consultants are below the standard norms mentioned in I.S. Code and shows doubtful quality of concrete and 90% probability of corrosion of R.C.C. members. Consultant Shri Yogesh P. Patel from Bai Velbai Velji Bhimji Charitable Trust opined that the building is in dilapidated condition, reinforcement has been deteriorated to the extent of 90% R.C.C. slab at same parts are sagged. The consultant V. J. Joshi & Associates opined for major structural repairs without os-wpl-3002-3011 & 2934 - 16 vacating tenants. It is also observed that there is a suit in a City Civil Court regarding evacuation filed by the owner. However, the same should be dealt by Asstt. Commissioner, F/North Ward separately.

Provisions of Section 354 of the Act of 1888 reads as under :-

"354. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall.
(1) If it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner that any structure (including under this expression any building, wall or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from, any building, wall or other structure) is in a ruinous condition, or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure, subject to the provisions of section 342 and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom.