Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – ss.353B and 354 – Demolition of building – Notice issued to Respondent No. 4-housing society u/s.354 of MMC Act in respect of whole building which was identified as dilapidated and dangerous – The said notice was issued after satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner in accordance with the provision of s.354 of MMC Act – An eviction notice was also issued to the appellants for eviction from flat occupied by them – There was an earlier dispute between appellant and society relating to some unauthorised changes in the structure of disputed flat occupied by the appellant – Civil suit filed by the appellant in this regard was dismissed and High Court in appeal directed the parties to maintain status quo – Appellant challenged the two notices issued by the Municipal Corporation – High Court refused to set aside the two notices on the ground that the building was ruinous, dilapidated and dangerous and unfit for human dwelling – On appeal, held: Appellant did not set out anything specific to demonstrate any perversity or manifest illegality in the satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner – Merely because the Municipal Corporation was made party to proceedings initiated by the appellants against society regarding alterations made in their occupied flat (earlier dispute) would not mean that Municipal Corporation cannot carry out an audit of the structure as a whole, as mandated by law – The satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner was in accordance with the due procedure prescribed by law and it was not vitiated by any perversity or illegality, thus, there existed no ground to interfere with the impugned notices. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MCGM
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Building in question had been constructed in the year 1967 and is about 55 years old. It is settled law under the MMC Act that once a building completes the prescribed period of life under the statute i.e., 30 years, a structural audit is required to be carried out for certifying its stability and safety for human dwelling mandatorily under the provisions of Section 353B of the 1888 Act. The audit has to be carried out in terms of the legal provisions and within the time specified and if not, then it is the Municipal Commissioner who can ensure that such an audit is carried out, or if there is no co-operation, he can come to an independent conclusion. [Para 14][205-G-H; 206-A-B]
2. The appellants did not set out anything specific in the Writ Petition demonstrating any perversity or manifest illegality in the satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner to invoke the powers of the High Court to interfere with the same. The dispute in the First Appeal and the Writ Petition are completely different having different dimensions and no inter se connection. Merely because the Municipal Corporation is a party to the proceedings initiated by the appellants with regard to alterations made in the flat existing in the dilapidated building will not mean that the Municipal Corporation cannot carry out an audit of the structure as a whole, as mandated by law, to judge the stability and safety. [Para 17][209-D-F]
3. The building in question is in a ruinous condition and needs to be repaired at the earliest for the simple reason that it is unsafe for human habitation. Once the satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner is in accordance with the due procedure prescribed by law and is not vitiated by any perversity or any illegality, there exists no ground to interfere with the impugned notices. [ Paras 21 and 22][210-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.