Full Judgment Text
2016:BHC-AS:23871
(38) AOST 1565-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO. 1565 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 1567 OF 2016
1. Mr. Pratap Mehta ]
Age-62 years, Occ.- Business, ]
Shop No.3, ]
2. Mr. Pankaj C. Shah ]
Age-55 years, Occ.- Business, ]
Flat No.203, ]
3. Mr. Suresh V. Punekar ]
Age-73 years, Occ.- Business, ]
Flat No.301, ]
4. Mr. Pannalal Soni ]
Age-62 years, Occ.- Business, ]
Shop No.2B, ]
5. Dr. Sulabha V. Punekar ]
Age-70 years, Occ.-Nil, ]
Flat No.302, ]
All having their respective premises ]
At Manish Apartment, Vile Parle, ]
Palace Co-op. Hsg., Soc. Ltd., ]
147, Nehru Road, Vile Parle (East), ]
Mumbai-400 057. ].. Appellants
Vs.
1. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. ]
Mumbai, a Corporation Established ]
and constituted under the Brihan ]
Mumbai Corporation Act, 1888, having ]
its registered Office at Mahapalika ]
Bhavan, Mahapalika Road, Fort, ]
Mumbai-400 001. ]
2. Reliance Energy Ltd. ]
a Company incorporated under the ]
provisions of the Indian Companies ]
1/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
Act, having their Registered office ]
at Reliance Energy Centre, ]
Santacruz (East), Mumba-400 055. ]
3. Parle Palace Co-operative Housing ]
Society Ltd., (Old Name Manish ]
Apartment), 147, Nehru Road, ]
Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. ]
4. Shamik Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ]
A company incorporated under the ]
provisions of the Companies Act, ]
1956, having its office at Dev Enclave, ]
Chitrakar Ketkar Marg, Vile Parle (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 057. ] .. Respondents
Mr. Krishna K. Holambe Patil for the appellants.
Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mrs. Madhuri More for the
Respondent-BMC.
Mr. Jahangir Khan for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Aniket A. Deshmukh for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
th
DATE : 26 SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 19.12.2015
passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, in Draft
Notice of Motion in L. C. Suit No. 3379 of 2015, thereby refusing ad-interim
relief to the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:
The appellants herein are the occupants and owners of their
respective flats and shop premises in the building known as 'Manish
Apartment'. Respondent No.3 is 'Parle Palace Co-operative Housing
2/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
Society Ltd.', which is consisting of twelve residential premises and five
shops. There were in all 17 tenants in the said building. The building
consists of five floors. On the ground floor, there were shop premises and
from 1st to 4th floors, there were residential premises. It is an admitted
fact that, except for the two tenants; one that of commercial premises and
the other that of residential premises, all other tenants have vacated
premises in their possession. It is also common ground between the
parties that respondent No.3-Society has entered into a Development
Agreement with respondent No.4-Builder. It is admitted that with effect
from December, 2016, the Builder is going to provide the occupants the
rent for the alternate premises.
3. In the backdrop of these facts, the appellants have challenged
the notice dated 14.03.2011 issued by Respondent No.1-Municipal
Corporation under Section 354 of the MMC Act, directing the appellants to
vacate the suit premises, so that the building can be demolished, as it has
become dilapidated and dangerous not only to the occupants thereof but
also to the passersby.
4. As per the appellants, it was the responsibility of Respondent-
Municipal Corporation and respondent No.3-society to carry out structural
audit of the building. However, no structural audit was carried out by them.
Conversely, the appellants got the structural audit of the building, done by
various independent authorities, like, Veermata Jijabai Technical Institute
3/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
(VJTI), Sardar Patel College of Engineering (SPCE) etc. However,
respondent No.1-Corporation failed to take into consideration those
structural audits and, on the basis of its own report, respondent-BMC has
issued the impugned notice. It is urged that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 be
restrained from acting upon the said notice, otherwise the appellants will
come on the street in the absence of the premises in their possession.
5. The interim relief to that effect claimed in the Notice of Motion
came to be strongly resisted by the respondent No.1-the Municipal
Corporation. It was submitted that the structural audit reports produced by
the appellants are based on the visual inspection of the building, whereas,
structural audit report submitted by respondent No.3-Society is based on
different tests carried out by the Structural Engineer, as per the guidelines
issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1135 of 2014. It was also
submitted that the officers of the respondent No.1-the Municipal
Corporation had visited the suit building, inspected the same and found it
to be in a dilapidated condition and, thus, it was urged that the building
needs to be immediately pulled down and reconstructed, otherwise there
is danger to the lives of the occupants and the passersby.
6. Respondent No.3-Society also resisted this Notice of Motion
by submitting that, except for the one occupant in residential premises and
the other occupant in shop premises, all other tenants in respondent No.3
society have vacated the building since three years back. It was submitted
4/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
that even as per the structural audit reports produced by the appellants,
the life of the building cannot be for more than five years even if huge
repair expenses are made and, therefore, respondent No.3-Society had
decided to redevelop the suit property. Accordingly, reports were
submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as
the "TAC"). The said Committee considered the reports. The members of
the Committee are experts in the field and hence it was urged that the Trial
Court should not sit in an appeal over the report of the expert committee
and relying on the said report of the expert committee, the Trial Court
should reject the ad-interim relief, as sought by the appellants, of calling
upon the respondent No.1-Corporation not to take any action in pursuance
of the notice issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act. It was also
submitted that, in view of the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.
1135 of 2014, the rights of the appellants will not be affected even if the
building is demolished. As against it, their lives will be definitely affected if
the building collapses and their lives are lost.
7. The Trial Court, after considering three reports on which
reliance was placed by respondent No.3-Society, and also the report
submitted by the appellants themselves, came to the conclusion that the
TAC has rightly accepted the report submitted by respondent No.3-Society
as it was based on the results of the technical tests which were carried
out, whereas, the reports submitted by the appellants were not based on
5/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
such technical tests. The Trial Court also then considered the fact that,
except for the appellants, no other tenant is residing in the said building
and since the year 2009, there are structural audit reports stating that the
suit building is required to be demolished and if ad interim relief is granted
in such a situation, then there was likelihood of building being collapsed
and thereby causing danger to the lives of the passersby and others.
Thus, the Trial Court rejected the ad interim relief by the impugned order.
In these facts and circumstances, the present appeal is preferred.
8. It may be stated, at this stage itself, that this Court has, vide
its order dated 01.03.2016, considered the report submitted by TAC and
which was also placed before the Trial Court. The said report being
challenged by the appellants in this appeal on the count that the specific
tests, as per the guidelines framed by this Court, were not conducted, this
Court observed that, without going into the issue whether the TAC has
strictly followed the guidelines framed by this Court vide order dated
23.06.2014 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1135 of 2014, it will be in the
interest of justice if TAC is directed to carry out specific tests, as per the
guidelines framed by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, and submit
its report to this Court on the issue as to whether the suit structure, which
is the subject matter of the notice issued under Section 354 of the MMC
Act, is required to be demolished or repairs can be carried out ?
6/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
9. It is the matter of record that as per the order passed by this
Court, the TAC has taken the decision of calling upon M/s. Shashank
Mehendale & Associates to carry out structural audit of the suit building
and, accordingly, Structural Consultant M/s. Shashank Mehendale &
Associates carried out the requisite tests and submitted its report. The
TAC considered the said report, after taking into consideration the
condition of the subject building, arrived at its own conclusion that the
occupants should be directed to vacate the building and the building
needs to be pulled down after taking necessary preventive measures such
as propping, barricading etc. to avoid mishap, so that the reconstruction
can be undertaken.
10. In this backdrop, the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is two fold. In the first place, it is urged that, as per the order
passed by this Court on 01.03.2016, it was for the TAC to carry out
structural audit as per the guidelines framed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1135 of 2014 and to submit the report.
However, the TAC itself has not carried out appropriate tests, but has
outsourced the said work to M/s. Shashank Mehendale & Associates. It is
urged that it was done by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation in
blatant volition of the order passed by this Court on 01.03.2016 and the
Guidelines framed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
(Lodging) No. 1135 of 2014. Hence, according to learned counsel for the
7/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
appellants, on this very ground itself, the report submitted by M/s.
Shashank Mehendale & Associates cannot be considered and hence, on
the basis of the said report, the decision taken by the TAC of demolishing
the said building is also liable to be set aside.
11. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellants has challenged
the report by submitting that the work order, as can be seen from the
documents produced on record by respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation
itself, was issued on 06.04.2016, whereas the samples are extracted by
the lab dated 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016. Thus, it is urged that the report
given by M/s. Shashank Mehendale & Associates is fabricated, should not
be relied upon and necessary action be also taken against them for the
same.
12. Before adverting to this submission made by learned counsel
for the appellants, it would be necessary to take a review of the facts,
which are undisputed in this case, as can be seen from the report and
from the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. There were three
structural audits conducted by respondent No.3-Society itself and those
three structural audits are referred by the Trial Court in para 8 of its order.
It reveals that the inspection of the suit building was carried out by one
Bhavesh Pathak, Structural Engineer in the month of December, 2009. He
has conducted the tests as per guidelines framed by this Court in Writ
Petition (Lodging) No. 1135 of 2014 and has given the report that the
8/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
occupants of the building should vacate the said building as it is required
to be demolished and reconstructed. The Trial Court has also referred to
the report dated 25.01.2011 in respect of the structural audit conducted by
Sardar Patel College of Engineering, which was done after carrying out
required tests and after suggesting to vacate the building for demolishing
the same, considering its precarious nature. The urgency was also
mentioned in the said report. There is another report dated 30.03.2015,
which is again submitted by Sardar Patel College of Engineering, after
carrying out further structural audit and necessary tests and
recommending pulling down of the suit building, having become
dangerous and dilapidated.
13. The appellants have tried to contradict these reports by
placing reliance on their own structural report dated 10.08.2014 given by
Mr. Navin M. Sangharajka, the Consulting Engineer. However, the Trial
Court, after perusal of the said report, found that it was given merely on
visual inspection of the building. The appellants then relied upon the
report dated 22.04.2015 given by VJTI. The Trial Court found that the said
report was submitted without carrying out the necessary tests. Only
ultrasonic pulse velocity test and rebound hammer tests were stated to be
carried out but results thereof were not mentioned in the said report. The
appellants thereafter relied upon the structural audit report given by M/s.
Yogesh P. Patel after carrying out inspection of the said building on
9/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
25.05.2015. The Trial Court found that the said report does not disclose
that the samples were taken by the lab or any any structural engineer from
the suit building.
14. In para 10 of its order, the Trial Court has considered the
report submitted by the TAC on 12.05.2015, according to which, since the
year 2008, action was initiated against the suit building on the inspection
report given by the Fire Brigade. The staff of the Municipal Corporation
had also visited the site and gave report. The TAC accepted the said
report and also the reports given by respondent No.3, which were based
on the results of technical tests required to be carried out and on the basis
of these reports, the Trial Court came to, prima facie, conclusion that,
when the expert committee has arrived at a certain decision that the
building has become dilapidated and needs demolition, moreover, when
the majority of the occupants of the said building had already vacated the
same for its demolition and redevelopment, if the relief, as claimed by the
appellants, is granted, it will endanger the lives, not only of those two
occupants, who are presently residing there, but also of the passersby and
accordingly, the Trial Court has refused to grant the an interim relief to the
appellants.
15. If the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is to be
accepted that this Court should not have called for any further evidence or
material as this is an appeal against the order and when the Trial Court
10/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
had already exercised its discretion on the documents produced before it,
this Court should not interfere in exercise of that Court, on the basis of the
additional documents submitted in this appeal, then it has to be held that
the discretion exercised by the Trial Court, being perfectly based on the
documents produced before it, no interference is warranted in the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It can be reiterated that there
were three structural audit reports stating that the condition of the building
is dilapidated. Those reports are submitted by the experts. Even the
reports, on which the appellants have relied upon, also go to show that the
life of the building, even though the major structural repairs are carried out,
cannot be more than 5 years. Hence, allowing such building to remain as it
is, despite the recommendations made by the expert committee of
demolition of the same, is as good as allowing human life to be sacrificed
merely because some tenants, i.e. only two tenants out of 17 tenants, are
insisting that they do not want to leave the premises. Therefore, if this
appeal is to be decided only on the basis of the material, which was
produced before the Trail Court and which is considered by the Trial Court
properly, this Court will have to hold that the Trial Court has rightly
exercised its discretion and, therefore, within the limited scope of the
appellate jurisdiction against discretionary order this Court should restrain
itself from interfering with the said order. On this sole ground, this appeal
needs to be dismissed.
11/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
16. Moreover, in view of the subsequent development that has
taken place in this appeal which is stated above, like, the order passed by
this Court on 01.03.2016, the entire matter needs to be re-appreciated
again. It has to be stated that this order dated 01.03.2016 was passed by
this Court as the appellants herein had challenged the report of TAC, on
which the Trial Court has relied upon. This Court, without entering into the
issue, whether the TAC had strictly followed the guidelines framed by this
Court vide its order dated 23.06.2014 passed in Writ Petition (Lodging)
No.1135 of 2014, felt that it would be in the interest of justice, if the TAC is
directed to carry out appropriate tests as per the guidelines and submit its
report. Therefore, when this order is invited by the appellants themselves
and on the basis of this order, there is some material collected and relied
upon, the submission of the appellants that this Court should not take into
consideration that material or the report submitted by the TAC cannot be
accepted. It is pertinent to note that the appellants have not challenged
this order dated 01.03.2016 passed by this Court and consequently this
order is implemented. Now when the copy of the report is placed before
the Court finally, the appellants again cannot contend that this Court
should not take into consideration these documents merely because
these documents are going against the case of the appellants.
17. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 01.03.2016,
12/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
the TAC has appointed M/s. Shashank Mehendale & Associates to carry
out structural audit along with ND test required Proform-B etc. M/s.
Shashank Mehendale & Associates had carried out structural audit of the
building and submitted its report, along with non destructive tests of
building to the Executive Engineer K/East Ward. The said report is also
produced on record and it clearly goes to state that the building is unsafe
for occupation. The report further reveals that the said M/s. Shashank
Mehendale & Associates carried out N.D. test. However as regards the
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test and Rebound Hammer Test were not carried
out, because the building is an old structure and major distresses were
noticed at the time of inspection and therefore these two tests may yield
non-representative values. The report further states that the Half Cell
Potential Test was carried out, which showed uncertainty of reinforcement
on ground, first and second floors and very high probability of
reinforcement on third and fourth floors. The Core Test is carried out
indicating the average test of the concrete of the said building under
reference is about 7.75 MPa which is about 50% of the M15 which is the
minimum concrete strength considered for RCC designs as per respective
IS codes referred at the time of construction of the building. As a result of
the same structural members of the said building are deficient in strength
posing grave danger to residents of the building. The report further states
that the Carbonation Depth Test indicated that the depth of carbonation is
more than clear cover depth of respective RCC members and acidic
13/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
region may be present around the reinforcement. The report categorically
recommends the pulling down of the building, having regard to its serious
and precarious condition. The report also states that the building needs to
be evacuated and propped at the earliest and immediately demolished.
18. It is also a matter of record that after the report was submitted,
the TAC held its meeting on 13.05.2016. The minutes of the said meeting
are produced on record and which show that prior to conduct this meeting
dated 13.05.2016 the TAC members visited the site on 05.05.2016, when
ward staff, Post Graduate Engineers appointed by MCGM were also
present. In this meeting of TAC dated 13.05.2016, the committee
members considered the report submitted by M/s. Shashank Mehendale &
Associates and after careful analysis of the said report, the TAC came to
its own independent conclusion that the building under reference is in
dilapidated condition and not fit for human habitation, hence, the building
should be evacuated and pulled down under the supervision of structural
consultant. The Committee in its meeting held that the TAC decision of
12.05.2015 to that effect holds good. The ward staff was accordingly
directed to inform the owner and occupier to vacate the building and to
take necessary preventive measures such as propping, barricading etc. to
avoid any mishap.
19. Thus, whatever findings which were arrived at on the basis of
the earlier TAC report dated 12.05.2015 are further confirmed by the TAC
14/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
after the careful analysis of report submitted by M/s. Shashank Mehendale
& Associates. This report of TAC Committee is not challenged on its
contents or its substance but it is challenged on the two counts, as stated
above. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the
order passed by this Court on 01.03.2016, the TAC was directed to carry
out appropriate tests as per the guidelines framed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1135 of 2014 vide its order dated
23.06.2014. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that in
the said Writ Petition it was clearly directed in Clause 9(d) that "the TAC
shall (i) carry out a visual inspection of the state of the internal and
external plaster, plumbing, drainage, whether the doors and windows
close properly, whether steel in columns is exposed, whether there is
settlement in the foundation, deflections/sagging, major cracks in
columns/beams seepages/leakages, staircase area and column condition,
lift well walls, U.G. tank, O.H. tank column condition, parapet at terraces,
chhajas, common areas, terrace water proofing and (ii) carry out specific
tests like ultrasonic pulse velocity test, rebound hammer test, half cell
potential test, carbonation depth test, core test, chemical analysis, cement
aggregate ratio as may be considered by TAC as necessary."
20. According to learned counsel for the appellants, these
directions to carry out visual inspection and specific tests being given to
the TAC, it follows that the TAC cannot delegate or outsource that work to
15/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
any other consultants. According to learned counsel for the appellants, as
in this case the TAC has outsourced this work to M/s. Shashank
Mehendale & Associates, it has flouted the order dated 01.03.2016 passed
by this Court and the guidelines issued by this Court. Hence, such report
needs to be ignored and it cannot be a correct or reliable material.
21. On the face of it, though the submission advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants may appear persuasive, on the closure scrutiny
it cannot be accepted. Though it may be true that the directions were
given to TAC to conduct the tests and then submit its report, it cannot be
accepted that the TAC has to personally do all this or the TAC was in any
way restrained from taking assistance of some consultant. Merely
because it is stated that the “TAC shall do” does not mean that the
respondent No.1-the members of the TAC themselves have to carry out
these tests. There is much substance in the submission advanced by
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1-the Municipal Corporation
that the TAC can definitely take the assistance of the consultants who are
on the panel of Municipal Corporation. It is not necessary that in each and
every case, when TAC is directed to do certain things, the members of the
TAC have to do it personally. What is meant by it is that TAC should take
its independent decision and not merely produce and reply upon the report
of the said consultant. In the instant case as stated above, the report of
the TAC goes to show after the order was passed by this Court on
16/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
01.03.2016, the TAC members have personally visited the site on
05.05.2016 and, therefore, there was visual inspection made personally by
the TAC. So far as the various tests are concerned, it is true that the TAC
has appointed M/s. Shashank Mehendale & Associates as consultant and
that consultant has submitted its report after carrying out the requisite
tests. However, the minutes of the meeting dated 13.05.2016 reveal that
the TAC considered that report and thereafter on careful analysis arrived
at its own decision. Therefore, it is not the case that the TAC has
delegated its power of taking independent decision to the consultant
appointed by it. Conversely, the TAC has taken its decision on its own,
may be with the assistance and help of the report submitted by the
consultant. Hence no fault can be found in the procedure adopted by the
TAC or in the decision taken by the TAC so as to totally discard the said
report or not to place the reliance thereon. When the Experts are there
and the TAC takes assistance of such experts to carry out the requisite
tests, there is nothing wrong.
22. The second count on which the learned counsel for the
appellants has challenged this report is that as per the report of M/s.
Shashank Mehendale & Associates, he has visited the site in April, 2016.
The report is filed on 29.04.2016. However, in the report it is mentioned
that samples were extracted on 31.03.2016 and 01.04.2016. It is urged
that if the work order is dated 06.04.2016, then, how the samples were
17/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
extracted much before it, and if that was the case, then there is fabrication
of the report.
23. However, in this respect, even the test reports reveal that
there is reference made to an email letter dated 31.03.2016. Learned
Senior Counsel for respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation has also
produced the file of original correspondence for the perusal of this Court to
show that M/s. Shashank Mehendale & Associates accepted the
appointment as Consultant on 30.03.2016 in pursuance of the telephone
talk. Therefore, merely because the work order is of 06.04.2016, it cannot
be said that anything done prior to that is fabricated, fraudulent or cannot
be relied upon. If the letter shows that willingness of M/s. Shashank
Mehendale & Associates was obtained as Consultant on 30.03.2016 itself
and the test reports also show there was reference to the email dated
31.03.2016, then, it has to be held that, much prior to 06.04.2016, the
process of appointing the Consultant, on the basis of the oral telephonic
talk and willingness, was initiated and, accordingly, considering the
urgency in the matter, the work has been started. Therefore, there is no
substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the report is fabricated and hence should not be relied upon.
24. Thus, if one considers this report of TAC which is not
challenged or controverted by the appellants by producing any contrary
report, then, it clearly, prima facie, goes to prove that the suit building
18/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
needs to be evacuated for the purpose of demolition, having become
precarious and dangerous. Hence, in the light of this additional material
also, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, refusing the ad-interim
relief to the appellants needs to be upheld.
25. At this stage, before concluding, it has to be again reiterated
that, out of 17 tenants in the building, except for the two tenants, one of
shop premises and the other one of residential premises, all of them have
vacated the suit building. Respondent No.3-Society has already entered
into Development Agreement with the respondent no.4-the Developer. It is
submitted that, from December, 2016, the rent for alternate premises is
going to be paid by respondent no.4-the Developer to the occupants of
the said building. In such situation, allowing suit building to remain in
existence, is not only dangerous to the lives of the appellants themselves
but also to the persons residing nearby and passers-by. It is undisputed
that the building is adjacent to the main road and, therefore, if it collapses,
then it is likely to cause damage and destruction of human lives also.
Therefore, it is necessary that the appellants vacate the said building as it
is better for them and others as well. In view of this, balance of
convenience also does not lie in favour of the appellants. Respondent
No.4-the Developer is also ready and willing to provide alternate
permanent accommodation to appellants in a newly constructed building.
Appellants will also get all the benefits stated under the Development
19/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
Agreement. I am sure that the better counsel will prevail and the
appellants themselves will vacate the premises at the earliest. The appeal
otherwise also holds no merit, hence, stands dismissed.
26. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants may be given some time to vacate the suit premises. It is
urged that the ad-interim relief granted by this Court is in existence till date
and the appellants undertake to vacate the suit premises by 30.11.2016,
as from 01.12.2016 the Builder is going to provide rent for alternate
premises. A statement is made by learned counsel for respondent No.4-
the builder that the rent for alternate accommodation will be paid from
01.12.2016. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are ready to give undertaking that they are occupying the
premises at their own risks and consequences and respondent No.1-
Municipal Corporation will not be held responsible for the same. Learned
counsel for the appellants further submits that this Court can dispose of
the Suit also on the basis of this undertaking.
27. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants
are granted time upto 03.11.2016 to vacate the suit premises, subject to
the following conditions:
(i) The appellants shall give an undertaking within
two weeks that they shall vacate the suit premises
on their own on or before 30.11.2016.
20/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::
(38) AOST 1565-16
(ii) The appellants shall also give an undertaking to
the effect that they alone will be responsible for
any loss or damage in case of any mishap caused
to the building and they will be occupying the
premises at their own costs and consequences.
Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation or
Respondent No.3 will not be responsible for the
same.
(iii) The appellants shall also file an undertaking to
the effect that they will pay Municipal Corporation
taxes as and when demanded by respondent
No.3 by issuing its bill.
(iv) In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the civil
application does not survive and hence stands
disposed off.
(v) In view of the above said order, the suit pending
before the Trial Court also stands disposed off
with the dismissal of this Appeal.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
21/21
::: Uploaded on - 05/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:10:08 :::