Brother’s Demolition Permit Stands, Madras HC Says Work Must Follow Safeguards To Protect Adjacent Building

The appellant and the fifth respondent are brothers; under a partition, the subject property was allotted to the fifth respondent, who obtained the Corporation’s permission dated 6 November 2025 to demolish the existing building under Section 246(A) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

The appellant challenged that permission by writ petition, apprehending damage to his adjoining property.

The fifth respondent gave an undertaking before the Single Judge to take precautions and avoid damage to the appellant’s property.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and the appellant appealed.

Section 246(A) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, was the statutory basis cited for the demolition permission.

The permission was subject to conditions requiring, among other things, suitable dust-control arrangements, safety barricading, precautions against danger or damage to neighbouring buildings and passersby, and Corporation inspection of the barricading before work could commence.

The Court also considered the fifth respondent’s undertaking to carry out the demolition without damaging the appellant’s property.

The Court examined the terms of the demolition permission and found that it prescribed safeguards, including barricading and inspection by Corporation officials before demolition work could begin.

It considered those conditions together with the fifth respondent’s undertaking to protect the appellant’s property.

In that setting, it held that the appellant’s apprehension—including his concern that the permission did not specify an area—did not establish a basis to interfere with the Single Judge’s order.

It directed that the fifth respondent carry out the demolition strictly in accordance with the Corporation’s permission.

There was no order as to costs, and the interim applications were dismissed.