AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per Chief Justice):
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Petition is filed seeking the following substantive reliefs:
(a)issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to the impugned Notice under Section 354 dated 03.09.2026 (Exhibit-A), and after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof, quash and set it aside, together with any consequential C-1 classification founded on the disputed report (Exhibit-D);
(b)issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to act strictly in accordance with the guidelines dated 23.06.2014 and policy No. MGC/A/8698 dated 03.05.2014, that is,
i.to conduct their own independent inspection and assessment;
ii.to consider the independent structural audit of Strut Consultants Pvt. Ltd.; and
iii.to refer the conflicting reports to the Technical Advisory Committee and to abide by its decision, before taking any action;
(c)issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction restraining Respondents No. 1 to 3 from taking any coercive step, demolition, evacuation or disconnection pursuant to the impugned Notice, and directing that, if the Building is found repairable, it be permitted to be repaired instead of demolished;
(d)issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to produce the delegation under Section 68 relied upon, and the record of any independent inspection/assessment said to have been made before the issue of impugned Notice;
Factual Matrix:-
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant Writ Petition are as under:
The Petitioners claim to be the owners, members and occupiers as the case may be of the corresponding Galas/Units shown against their name in a building known as Vijay Industrial Estate (for short ‘the said Building’). They all claim to constitute a substantial majority of members/occupants of the Vijay Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short “the said Society”) and all the Petitioners have filed the instant Petition in their own rights as owners/members/occupiers to protect the building and its units/galas from the arbitrary demolition as per Notice under Section 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the MMC Act”) dated 3rd September, 2026 (for short “Impugned Notice”).
The said Building stands upon leasehold land held under an Indenture of Lease dated 28th August, 1971 and a sub-lease dated 2nd October, 1971 in favour of M/s. Vijay Construction Co. which constructed the industrial galas. Consequently, Completion Certificate was also accorded on 10th January, 1973. Admittedly the building was constructed in 1973 and is about 53 years old. Later on, the purchasers of the industrial gala/unit of the said Building formed a Co-operative Society, which was duly registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960 under the registration no. BOM/GEN/1092 of 1978 dated 30th May, 1978. It also appears that the conveyance/deem conveyance of the land in favour of Society is still pending and the Petitioners claim to hold certain valuable right i.e. ownership/leasehold/occupancy right and have claimed that they are running business in the said Building.
As per the provisions of Section 353(B) of the MMC Act, it is obligatory on the part of the owners and occupiers of the building, which is in existence and is in use for more than 30 years to have it inspected through registered Structural Engineer with Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“the MCGM” for short). In the instant matter, it is not in dispute that the building in question had completed 53 years of its existence and hence, a structural audit was to be conducted.
The record bears out that an Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the said Society was held on 2nd January 2026 wherein the said Mr. Vinod Meher, the Intervenor in these proceedings, was appointed as the Chairman of the said Society. The Minutes of the Meeting are annexed at (page 93) to the Petition. Thereafter the Society decided to carry out a structural audit which took place in a meeting held on 2nd January 2026. Pursuant thereto a Structural Audit Report dated 21st January 2026 was furnished, a copy of which is exhibited (at page 77 to 89) of the Petition (for short ‘Audit Report’). The said Auditor has, inter alia, opined the structure is not safe for workable condition and also that the building is in a highly critical condition, in C-1 category. In fact, by the communication dated 25th April 2026 addressed by the Society to the Assistant Commissioner of the Respondent -MCGM has unanimously resolved that the building has been assessed to be in a seriously deteriorated structural condition and is liable to be classified under C-1 category. Not only this but it also states that the implications of such classification, as C-1 category are extremely serious to include immediate threat to life and property. Such communication dated 25th April 2026 is, also signed by the Secretary and Treasurer of the Society, at the relevant time who happened to be Petitioners herein, besides the Chairman of the Society, i.e. the Intervenor in these proceedings.
Later on, MCGM had issued Notice dated 18th March 2026, under Section 353-B of MMC Act and called for Audit Report. Consequently, the Audit Report dated 21st January, 2026 issued by Mr. Vinay A. Kania of M/s. Seemu Consultancy was submitted to the Respondent No. 3 on 22nd April, 2026. Consequently, a Notice dated 3rd September 2026 was issued under Section 354 of MMC Act by MCGM, which is under challenge. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Notice the instant proceeding is preferred.
The matter was heard at the admission stage, as the claims and counter claims had been set up by the parties on 11th September 2026 and in the midst of the proceeding, Mr. Meezan Patel, learned Counsel, had also appeared for the Intervener and raised an objection that other co-tenants in the said Building have not been impleaded as party Respondents. The Court had prima facie opined that the subject building is in dilapidated condition. The Intervener Counsel had placed various photographs and had submitted that the subject building is in dangerous and dilapidated condition. The same was disputed by learned Counsel for the Petitioners and consequently on his insistence, Mr. Siddharth S. Chandrashekhar, who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, was appointed as a Court Commissioner and later on, he had submitted a detailed Report in a sealed cover and accordingly by the Order of this Court dated 21st September, 2026, the same was opened in the presence of the parties. The Registry was directed to supply the photocopy of the Court Commissioner's Report to the parties during the course of the day.
Submissions of the Petitioners:-
Learned Counsel for Petitioners vehemently argued that the Impugned Notice dated 3rd September, 2026 is unsustainable and needs to be set aside, as the same is in direct conflict of Judgment and Order dated 23rd June, 2014 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors,1 as no independent inspection or assessment had been carried out to classify the building as “C-1 Category” (unsafe/dangerous/inhabitable structure need to be vacated and demolished). He further placed reliance on the MCGM Policy No. MGC/A/8698 dated 3rd May, 2014 and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) [Guidelines for declaring Private and Municipal Building C-1 category (Dangerous, Unsafe)]. He further submits that the entire action of the Respondent-MCGM is in direct conflict with the mandatory guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (supra) and in spite of best endeavour, the Respondent-MCGM failed to consider the owners/occupants genuine efforts to ensure an independent structural audit and rather all sorts of obstruction had been created by the Respondents for carrying out a structural audit.
He submits that in view of the contradictory Audit Report submitted by Mr. Vinay A. Kania of M/s. Seemu Consultancy, it is a well settled position that in case there is a conflict in position, it is mandatory upon the MCGM to refer the matter to the Technical Advisory Committee (for short -“TAC”). Therefore, as there is a certain ambiguity in the Audit Report and there is a doubtful authorship of the said Audit Report, a claim is set up by the Petitioners that the building is habitable and in repairable condition. The Impugned Notice is also in direct teeth of the Clause No. 1.07 of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) [Guidelines for declaring Private and Municipal Building C-1 category (Dangerous, Unsafe)] of the MCGM, which requires the Executing Engineer to submit a detailed Report with concluding remarks, structural audit, inventory, photographs and video shooting of the building through the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Chief (Building Proposals) for sanctioning/classifying the said Building as C-1 Category and Clause 1.08 permits the Section 354 of MMC Act Notice to issue only upon such sanction/classification, whereas in the instant matter the same is violated.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that major structural repairs took place in the year 2009 and necessary details have also been brought on record to substantiate the said argument and as such the demolition under the Impugned Notice is grossly disproportionate and the entire exercise is malafide and calibrated. Furthermore, the same is in violation of the SOP and in the absence of any TAC Report the building in question cannot be categorized/classified as ‘C-1 category’ and in case no reliefs are accorded by this Court, the Petitioners/Occupants would suffer irreparable loss.
Submissions of the Respondent - MCGM:
Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondent-MCGM vehemently resisted the reliefs and submitted that the Notice under Section 353-B of MMC Act is rightly issued to the Owners/Occupiers of the said Building. The same is neither perverse nor suffers from any irregularity. The Structural Audit Report prepared by Structural Engineer, Mr. Vinay A. Kania of M/s. Seemu Consultancy (License No. STR/K/227) was duly submitted and signed by Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the said Society on 22nd April, 2026. After receiving the said Audit Report, MCGM invited objections vide letter dated 3rd July, 2026 and admitted that there was no such contradictory Report. Consequently, the measurement of carpet area and possession of Owner/Chairman/Secretary/Occupiers residing in said Building had been carried out and issued a carpet area measurement on 1st September, 2026.
As there was no contradictory Audit Report received, there was no occasion for referring the matter to TAC and moreover, as an abundant precaution and on the Petitioners insistence, a Court Commissioner, who is an independent person was appointed and in the presence of all the stakeholders, a categorical Report of the Court Commissioner had been submitted to the Court qua the status of the said Building. The same has also fortified the stand of Respondent-MCGM, which is a statutory body to ensure that in case the said Building has been found to be dangerous for occupiers and also for the passers-by the Impugned Notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act is sustainable.
She further relied on Order dated 21st March, 2025 passed by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation and Others vs. Eknath Mane & Ors2. wherein an undertaking was furnished by the Petitioners in the said case stating that if any untoward incident happened, the Petitioners would accordingly bear all the damages incurred. The said undertaking is deprecated by the Apex Court and held as under :
“After hearing learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner(s) and the respondents (except Respondent No. 1), we are the opinion that the orders which have been passed by the High Court, particularly the order dated 21.06.2022, could not have been passed merely on an assurance or an undertaking given by Respondent No. 1 (petitioner before the High Court), as the question is not merely of the safety of Respondent No. 1 but of public safety of entire community and of all the residents who are residing in "that dilapidated building and their neighbourhood.”
In light of all the above submissions, Ms. Metakari, learned Counsel for the Respondent- MCGM would urge that the Petition is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed.
Submissions of the Intervener:
Learned Counsel for the Intervenor has tendered a compilation of documents and judgments. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.
He placed reliance on the letter dated 2nd January, 2026 (Structural Engineer Appointment Letter) issued by the Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary of said Society to M/s. SWAP Consultant and Associates through which the Structural Auditor was appointed for the said Building.
Learned Counsel for the Intervener further relied on the Minutes of the Meeting dated 17th January, 2026 for appraisal of Audit Report received from the SWAP consultant, wherein all members unanimously agreed to proceed with the Deemed Conveyance as per the proposal submitted by the Kulkarni & Associates. Furthermore, it is agreed that each member will contribute Rs.32,000/- per gala/unit payable before 31st January 2026. The said Minutes also refer to the illegal encroachments of the society area and calling upon the concerned Members of the Society to clear the encroachment in accordance with approved MCGM blue prints before 25th January, 2026 failure to which appropriate authorities would be notified. The same is duly signed and issued by the Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary of said Society.
Learned Counsel for the Intervenor vehemently relied on the communication dated 25th April, 2026 issued by the Chairman of the said Society to the Assistant Commissioner, BMC. Through the said letter the Chairman of the said Society informed the Assistant Commissioner about internal and external encroachments of the said Building may pose serious threats to the Vijay Industrial Estate as per Audit Report. In the said communication, the said Society itself has acknowledged that in pursuance to the Notice issued by the Respondent-MCGM under Section 353-B of the MMC Act, the said Building is in seriously deteriorated structural condition and is liable to be classified under ‘C-1 category’, as implications of such classification are extremely serious and include immediate threat to life and property. By the said communication, it had also been acknowledged that certain members have undertaken unauthorized and hazardous work including illegal metal structures, lofts, extensions and coverings and also imposed excess structural load beyond permissible limits and such acts cause structural distress and increased risk to all Occupants/Members. The said communication was also duly endorsed by the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the said Society. Relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced herein below:
“We would like to draw your urgent attention to a highly dangerous situation at Vijay Industrial Estate.
A loosely hanging slab located on the southern side of the estate is in a critical condition and may collapse at any time, posing a serious threat to life and property.
It is further brought to your notice that the area directly beneath this slab has been illegally encroached upon by Mr. Reheman. Despite repeated warnings and requests to demolish the unauthorized encroachment, no action has been taken by him. Please note Mr. Reheman does not possess any valid registration documents for the encroached area. Also, the above-mentioned area is not in the society blue print.
Given the imminent risk, we request the BMC to take immediate action to: Inspect the site at the earliest
Initiate necessary action against the illegal encroachment.
In the event of any accident, collapse, fire or damage, the Society and its Managing Committee shall not be held responsible for consequences arising out of member-level violations, outside encroachments which shall be entirely at the risk, cost and liability of the concerned defaulting member and encroachers.
We have duly discharged our responsibility by informing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation about the above-mentioned hazardous condition. Any delay in action may lead to serious consequences for which the managing Committee will not be responsible.”
Learned Counsel for the Intervenor vehemently submitted that the society itself has acknowledged the critical condition of a building which was already declared as C-1 Category, therefore at this stage the Petitioners may not be permitted to resist the said communication and take a contrary stand on account of a certain dispute with society members and ask for an intervention of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India. Thus, the instant Writ Petition is liable to dismissed with exemplary cost.
Findings and Conclusion:
We have carefully considered the submission made at Bar and perused the material placed on record.
Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is important to notice that buildings in Mumbai that need repair are classified into the following categories:
| Category | Description |
| C-1 | Unsafe/dangerous/inhabitable structures need to be vacated and demolished |
| C2A | Partially unsafe/dangerous/structures requiring major structural repairs by partially vacating the dangerous part of the structure |
| C2B | Structure requiring major structural repairs without vacating the structure |
C3 Minor repairs
In the instant case, the said Building had been constructed in the year 1973 and is about 53 years old. It is settled principle of 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 MMC 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. Section 353B of the MMC Act talks about Structural Stability Certificate which reads as under:
“353B. (1) Every owner or occupier of a building in respect of which a period of thirty years, from the date of, —
(i)issue of its completion certificate by the Corporation; or
(ii)issue of permission to occupy a building under section 353A; or
(iii)its physical occupation of at least 50 per cent., of its built-up area, whichever is earlier, has expired, shall cause such building to be examined by a Structural Engineer registered with the Corporation for the purposes of certifying that the building is fit for human habitation (such certificate hereinafter referred to as “the Structural Stability Certificate”). The Structural Stability Certificate issued by such Structural Engineer shall be submitted to the Commissioner.
(2)The Structural Stability Certificate shall be submitted within one year from the expiry of a period of thirty years referred to in subsection (1), and every ten years thereafter or such earlier period as the Commissioner may determine having regard to the condition of the building and the corrective repairs carried out by the owner or occupier.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Commissioner may, at any time, after having recorded the reasons, in writing, direct the owner or occupier of a building, to cause such building to be examined by such Structural Engineer and to submit to the Commissioner, the Structural Stability Certificate, as required under sub-section (1), within the period not exceeding thirty days as specified by the Commissioner, in such direction.
(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 fine as provided in section 471.
(6)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the Commissioner may, after giving the owner or occupier, a notice in writing, require him to carry out, within the period specified in the notice, corrective repairs for securing structural stability of a building. If the owner or occupier fails to carry out such corrective repairs within the period specified in the notice, the Commissioner may carry out the same and the expenses incurred by the Commissioner on such repairs shall, on demand if not paid within thirty days, be recovered from the owner or occupier as arrears of property tax.
(7)If there is any dispute about the amount of expenses for which demand is made under sub-section (6), an appeal may be preferred to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, but no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge, unless— (i) it is preferred within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of notice of such demand; (ii) the amount for which demand is made is deposited with the Corporation and a true copy of the receipt showing that the amount has been so deposited accompanies the appeal.
(8)In case the appeal is decided in favour of the appellants and the amount of expenses deposited with the Corporation is more than the amount payable by the appellants, the Commissioner shall adjust the excess amount with interest at 6.25 per cent, per annum from the date on which the amount is so deposited by the appellants, towards the property tax payable by the owner in respect of such building thereafter.”
In the case at hand, the Audit Report dated 21st January, 2026 of the said Building in question has found it to be dangerous for human dwelling and also for the passers-by. Relevant concluding part of the Audit Report dated 21st January, 2026 is reproduced here under:
“XXX
| 16 | Conclusion and Consultants | Observations / key reasons |
| i. Whether structure is livable/or whether it is to be evacuated/pulled down | Structure is not safe for workable condition. | |
| ii. Whether structure requires tenantable repairs/Major structure repair and its time frame | Structure requires urgent evacuated. | |
| iii. Whether structure can be allowed to Occupy during course of repairs. | Full evacuation if required | |
| iv. Nature/ Methodology of repairs | Refer our report | |
| v. Whether structure repairs immediate Propping. If so, its propping plan/ methodology given | Not possible | |
| vi. Whether other | immediate No Specified recommendation. |
| safety measures required-What is specific Recommendation? | |||
| vii. Enhancement in life of structure after repairs/frequency of repairs required in extended life period | Yes it is seen under no task for extended life period. | ||
| ix. Specific remarks, whether building needs to be | No requirement of recondition | ||
| x. Whether structure in extremely critical condition | Yes and highly noticed | ||
| 17 | Critical Observation | Refer our report | |
| 18 | Classification of Bldgs. | Category | Auditors' final conclusion |
| C1 | TO BE EVACUATED/ DEMOLITION IMMEDIATELY | ||
Further Impugned Notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act was issued on 3rd September, 2026 and it is pertinent to mention that the said Notice was issued in respect of the whole building which has been identified as dilapidated and dangerous. The said Notice was issued only after the satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 354 of the MMC Act which reads as under:—
“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 affixed 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 neighborhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure 1[subject to the provisions of section 342], of danger therefrom.
(2)The Commissioner may also if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier, by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure or repair the said structure, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same and the Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as a footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence.”
On account of insistence of the Petitioners’ Counsel at the admission stage, this Court vide Order dated 11th September, 2026 had appointed a Court Commissioner, who had submitted his Report dated 17th September, 2026. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Court Commissioner’s Report is reproduced herein below:
“XXX
5.Prima facie this structure needs urgent & immediate attention. Parts of load bearing walls have been Several columns beams and staircases were exposed with huge chunks of cement, having come off some of which have the iron and steel bars within the RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete) exposed. While the interiors of some of the premises may appear to provide an illusion that the premises is well maintained (i.e., cemented patches and painting. wall paper, etc), this, in my opinion cannot be construed to mean that the structure of the building is not in urgent need of immediate attention.
6.It is all the more concerning as the premises is an Industrial estate premise with several heavy machinery being operated in some of the Galas which not only have a constant focused concentration of weight in particular areas but also cause (minor) vibration during normal operation causing a further strain on the overall structure.
7.For all the aforementioned reasons, it is my opinion that the building is in a dilapidated and hazardous condition and it would be ideal to evacuate and thereafter demolish the same at the earliest to prevent any loss to life and/or. This concludes my Report.
The relentless contention of the learned Counsel of the Petitioners that the declaration of C-1 classification of the said Building by the MCGM by Impugned Notice dated 3rd September, 2026 is founded on the disputed Audit Report dated 21st January, 2026, is not sustainable in our considered view, for the simple reason being that the Report submitted by the Court Commissioner is in consonance with the Audit Report dated 21st January 2026 submitted by Vinay A. Kania of M/s. Seemu Consultancy. Moreover, the Petitioners have not brought on record any justifiable reason and or circumstances to disregard such Structural Audit Report and/or the independent Report of the Court Commissioner, so as to persuade the Court to take a different view in the matter.
One of the prayers of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is to direct the Respondent-MCGM to refer the matter to the TAC. On contrary to the learned Counsel for the Respondent-MCGM has submitted that, as there was no contradictory Audit Report received, there is no question of referring the matter to TAC. The Petitioners have, in the given factual matrix failed to demonstrate any legal requirement to refer the matter to TAC, in the given situation. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the letter dated 25th April, 2026 which has been duly signed by the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the said Society to the Assistant Commissioner, BMC crystallizes the fact that the said building is in a seriously deteriorated structural condition and poses an eminent threat to the life and limb of the occupier/members. This letter itself supports the MCGM’s classification of the said Building as C-1 Category.
We find that the afore-mentioned letter dated 25th April 2026 wherein the Petitioners are signatories would act as estoppel against the Petitioners to take an objection on the categorization of the building as C-1, when they have themselves acquiesced to such position. Upon a specific query put to the Petitioners by the Court, they have not disputed to have signed such letter and/or deny the contents thereof. The learned Counsel for the Respondents and the Intervener are justified in raising an objection that such material and relevant document/letter dated 25th April 2026 is not disclosed/suppressed by the Petitioners. The Petitioners have no convincing answer, let alone a plausible explanation and/or justification to controvert such position.
It is in similar facts and circumstances that this Court has dismissed the Petition in Anandashram Co-operative Housing society (Proposed) & Ors. Vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.3 where a similar submission was raised with regard to the admission of the Petitioners qua the letter dated 25th April 2026 in this case, where Petitioners admit that the building is in dilapidated condition falling under C-1 category. We do not see any reason, in the given factual complexion so as to persuade us to take a different view.
The record bears out that the building in question is in a precarious, unsafe condition and needs to be repaired at the earliest for the simple reason that it is unsafe for human habitation. The historic buildings in Mumbai are a reminder of the city's rich and aesthetic architectural styles. Therefore, in order to preserve the authenticity of the buildings, it is important that certain legal measures need to be taken so that the safety and stability can be certified under Section 353B of the MMC Act, 1888. Once we find that 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 Notice.
The Petitioners through their learned Counsel have handed over their written submissions on 12th October 2026, after the matter was reserved for judgment/orders. A perusal thereof would reveal that the stand taken by the Petitioners therein is not only in conformity with the case set up in the Petition and/or pleading but also it appears that a new case has been attempted to be set up/emerged for the first time, which is not permissible. However, the stand of the Petitioners in the written submissions qua demolition of the subject property is that they are ready and willing to repair the building and do not resist its demolition if, after a lawful and complete process, demolition is genuinely found to be warranted. Even on such ground if the stand taken by the Petitioners in the written submissions for the first time, is to be accepted, the demolition of the subject building, in our view being in accordance/conformity with law, does not warrant any interference.
This is not a fit case where any independent structural audit can be conducted in the given factual position, considering the precarious dilapidated condition of the said building, accepting such contention would lead to a situation where there is no end to such process, merely because the report does not suit or meet the requirements of some of the tenants/occupants. We cannot countenance such situation.
In our view, judicial notice ought to be taken of the various media reports reporting collapse of many old structures in Mumbai causing serious loss of human lives and limbs. Accepting the case of the Petitioners and thereby intervening in the proceedings, in the existing facts and circumstances, would not only tantamount to putting the life of the owners/occupants and other residents of the building in jeopardy, but also pose an imminent danger to safety of the public as well, which cannot be accepted.
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Impugned Notice dated 3rd September, 2026 issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed.
Considering the precarious condition of the said building and the serious safety concerns, we accordingly direct the Petitioners to vacate the premises within three weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment.
In view of the Dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending Interim Application does not survives and is also Disposed Of.