Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 there 'at their own risk' and will give an 'undertaking' to assume all liability, including to third parties. In at least nine separate judgments delivered recently we have set out the law on the subject. We begin this discussion, therefore, by noting these decisions and summarizing the principles in law that apply to such a situation. The decisions are:

354. (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 afxed 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, of danger therefrom.

(4) If the Structural Engineer recommends any corrective repairs for securing the structural stability of the building, such corrective repairs shall be carried out by the owner or occupier of a building to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.
(5) Any owner or occupier, as the case may be, who fails to carry out corrective repairs for securing structural stability, within a period of six months from the date of report of the Structural Engineer, shall be punished with the fne as provided in section 471.

35. We note that this question of structural repairs has been going on for six years. The building is of 1964. It has had no repairs, and any the petitioners attempted were without authorisation.

36. But we will aford the petitioners the additional indulgence of looking a little more closely at their two reports. The Dada Veer Consultants report is from page 67. There were no structural drawings. At page 72, it was noted that the overall condition of all structural members was not satisfactory. This is reiterated at page