Commissioner must independently form an opinion through expert report and hearing before ordering demolition of dangerous buildings.

The petitioners are tenants of ground-floor shops in a building owned by the Respondent No. 3 Trust.

On August 22, 2014, the Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 2) issued a notice under Section 310 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, ordering the demolition of the shops on the grounds that the first floor was in a dilapidated and dangerous condition.

The petitioners alleged that the notice was issued with mala fide intent and in collusion with the landlord to bypass formal eviction proceedings, noting that the building had remained standing since 2014 without causing public harm.

The respondents contended that the notice was legally issued following an inspection by the Commissioner and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 403 of the Act.

1. Whether the Municipal Corporation’s notice for demolition under Section 310 of the Act was validly issued without an independent expert report or an opportunity for the tenants to be heard.

2. Whether the court should adjudicate disputed questions of fact regarding the structural integrity of a building under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Section 310 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which empowers the Commissioner to identify and demolish dangerous buildings, and Section 403, which providing for appeals.

Precedent Dharmendra & Ors. Vs. Dhananjay Sharma and others (W.A. No. 294/2019), which established that the Commissioner must independently form an opinion on the building's state and should afford inhabitants an opportunity of hearing when collusion with a landlord is alleged.

The court observed that the impugned notice was issued solely based on a note-sheet recording the Commissioner's inspection, without the application of mind or supporting evidence from a technical expert.

The court determined that while it cannot resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the building's condition under Article 226, the Corporation is duty-bound to base such drastic actions on an expert report.

Following the Dharmendra precedent, the court reasoned that because the tenants alleged the demolition was a ruse for eviction, the principles of natural justice required the Corporation to conduct a survey by an independent structural engineer and grant a hearing to the petitioners before proceeding.

The court directed the Municipal Corporation to conduct a survey of the building using an independent Structural Engineer. If the report necessitates action under Section 310, the Corporation must provide the petitioners a hearing and pass a reasoned order within two months. The interim stay on demolition was extended until the conclusion of this exercise, with the caveat that Respondent No. 3 (the landlord) is absolved of liability for any interim damage or loss of life due to the building's condition.