Summary
A 1967 building in Chembur, Mumbai was classified C-1 (most dangerous) after a structural audit and municipal inspection. The Municipal Commissioner issued a Section 354 notice to pull it down, and the occupants were served eviction notices while the society entered a redevelopment agreement. The owners of one flat challenged the notices, relying mainly on a status quo order in their separate first appeal about unauthorised alterations and terrace regularisation. The High Court dismissed their writ petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The status quo dispute was unconnected and did not stop the Corporation acting on the building's safety. The Commissioner's satisfaction was neither perverse nor illegal, and the redevelopment agreement protected the appellants' rights. Interfering would endanger residents and the public.
Issues
- Whether a demolition notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for a C-1 category building could be quashed because of a status quo order in a separate dispute about alterations to one flat
- Whether the flat owners' rights were adequately protected so as not to warrant interference
Provisions considered
- Section 353B, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888Buildings over 30 years old require structural audits. The audit here found the building C-1, beyond repair and unsafe. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Section 354, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888The Commissioner's satisfaction that the structure was ruinous and dangerous followed due procedure, and the demolition notice was upheld. (¶¶ 16, 22)
Held
- Buildings older than 30 years must be audited for structural stability under Section 353B. The audit found this 55-year-old building C-1, beyond repair and unsafe for occupants and passers-by, and the Commissioner validly issued a Section 354 notice for the whole building. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The status quo order in the appellants' first appeal concerned unauthorised alterations and terrace regularisation in their flat. It had no connection with the structural safety of the building and did not prevent the Corporation from auditing the structure and acting under the statute. (¶ 17)
- The appellants showed no perversity or illegality in the Commissioner's satisfaction. Their independent rights in the flat were protected by the redevelopment agreement, which provided a larger new flat for the terrace and monthly displacement compensation, so demolition did not affect those rights. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 22)
- Their being senior citizens did not justify leniency against the larger public interest. Judicial notice can be taken of deaths from old building collapses in Mumbai, and interference would endanger residents and the public. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's refusal to quash the demolition notice of 19.01.2015 and the eviction notice of 21.02.2015 was upheld; pending applications and the contempt petition disposed of.