Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr. Kamat, the learned senior advocate would appear on behalf of the Intervenors who have filed Interim Application No.7906/2023 seeking to intervene in the present appeal. He would submit that the suit property comprises of building with Ground + 3 Upper Floors, a Chawl and 3 garages. That there are 25 tenants in the suit property, out of whom 20 tenants have already consented for re-development. That the building 'Shriniwas House' situated on the suit property is in precarious condition. He would submit that several mishaps have taken place where portions of the building have collapsed endangering the lives of the occupants. He would invite my attention to various photographs placed on record to demonstrate the ruinous condition of building. That, as per the structural audit report, the building is classified in C-2B category requiring major structural repairs. That, on account R Dilwale 17-AO-281-23 @ Others.docjudgement of disputes between the co-owners, the tenants are unnecessarily made to suffer. He would submit that till resolution of dispute relating to shares of owners, the tenants cannot be made to live in a building which is dilapidated.

9. It appears that the structure located on the suit property 'Shriniwas House' was originally constructed in the year 1925 and has been further developed in the year 1950 and 1966. As per the report submitted by the structural auditor, the building is classified into 'C-2B' category requiring major structural repairs. About 80% of the tenants have agreed for re-development of the building and except Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 (d), the other co-owners are apparently agreeable for re-development of the suit property. Plaintiff appears to be opposing the re-development through developer chosen by the other co-owners and carries an impression that the location of suit property at prime spot would fetch much higher value. It thus appears that the Plaintiff is not per se opposed to the re-development idea. She however feels that the structure is not in a dilapidated condition and can be repaired and that therefore there is no hurry in going for re- development by accepting proposal of a developer, who wants to take over the property at a throwaway price. Upon a query R Dilwale 17-AO-281-23 @ Others.docjudgement made by the Court as to whether the Plaintiff is willing to share the costs for carrying out major structural repairs, she expressed her inability to do so. It therefore appears that the Plaintiff neither wants to carry out structural repairs nor is consenting for re-development of the property. I have gone through the report of structural auditor as well as the photographs placed on record. The photographs show ruinous condition of the structure. The tenants have pleaded that several portions of the suit structure have collapsed. Photographs of mishaps that have occurred in the past are also placed on record. From the report of the structural auditor as well as condition of the building as seen from from the photographs, it is difficult to believe that the building is safe for occupation at present or in future.

10. The issue that therefore arises is whether the other co- owners and tenants should be exposed to danger while residing in structure requiring major structural repairs during resolution of disputes between the co-owners regarding their shares. The suit of the Plaintiff is pending since the year 2006 and it is not known as to how long will it take for its final decision. The decision of the City Civil Court may further be carried in appeal by the aggrieved parties. In such R Dilwale 17-AO-281-23 @ Others.docjudgement circumstances, re-development of the building cannot be stalled till rights and entitlements of the family members to the suit property are finally determined.