Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. There is a persistent attempt to misread, misconstrue and misapply the interim directions of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 (later finally numbered as Writ Petition No. 1080 of 2015, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v State of Maharashtra & Ors). There, a Division Bench of this Court made an interim order on 23rd June 2014 on a case presented to it that buildings that were otherwise structurally sound, or at best required repairs, were being declared as structurally unsafe, unfit for human habitation, ruinous and dangerous and were being ordered to be pulled down. The allegation was that this was done at the instance of rapacious landlords and property owners with the active connivance of municipal officials. The Court therefore, framed a series of guidelines by its order dated 23rd June 2014. The Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (AS Oka, J, as he then was and RI Chagla, J) on 28th 12th September 2023 Andheir Purab Paschim CHSL v MCGM & Ors 917-oswpl-4234-2023+J.doc February 2018.1 By that time, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") had adopted the guidelines framed by the interim order of 23rd June 2014. An earlier version of these 'policy guidelines' of the MCGM were put on affidavit before the Division Bench (of Oka J, as he then was and RI Chagla J) at the final disposal of the Petition. The final policy guidelines are of 25th May 2018, captioned GUIDELINES FOR DECLARING PRIVATE AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AS C-1 CATEGORY (DANGEROUS, UNSAFE).

11. Under the guidelines there are four categories. C-1 is the most dangerous. Category C-2A buildings are those that are partly unsafe. Category C-2B buildings require major structural repairs without vacating the structure. Category C-3 buildings require only minor repairs.

12. The Petition challenges a consequential notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("MMC Act").

13. This Section exists for an entirely salutary purpose, one that seems to have wholly escaped these Petitioners. It finds a place in a sub-section called 'Dangerous Structures' and that is part of Chapter XII of the MMC Act which deals with building regulations. We now reproduce the whole of Section 354.

Dangerous Structures.

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 12th September 2023 Andheir Purab Paschim CHSL v MCGM & Ors 917-oswpl-4234-2023+J.doc 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 of danger therefrom.

17. In Hind Rubber Industries, the Court surveyed the law on the subject. We reproduce the relevant portions.

19. In Tushar Ranglidas Notaria v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,4 a Division Bench of which one of us (GS Patel J) was a member considered the legal position in such situations.5 In paragraphs 3 and 4, the Court said:

3. The conspectus of the petition is almost identical to nearly two dozen petitions we have heard and dealt with in the last two or three months: tenants of a building that is over 30 years old having received an evacuation notice from the MCGM, and having taken no steps by themselves or by compelling the owner to carry out essential structural repairs, then rush to court and claim (a) that the building does not need demolition or evacuation; (b) that it is structurally sound; and (c) that the petitioner-tenants will continue to live 3 (2014) 14 SCC 1.