Material repairs subsequent to a C-1 classification render demolition notices under Section 354 unsustainable.

The Petitioners are tenants of "Angela Villa" in Borivali, Mumbai

Respondent No. 2 (MCGM) issued communications on 21st August, 4th September, and 19th September 2025, classifying the building as a "C-1" category (dangerous/ruinous) and directing immediate evacuation and demolition under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888

The Petitioners contended that two prior structural audit reports (August 2023 and April 2025) categorized the building as "C-2B" (requiring repairs)

Despite the tenants commencing and completing repair works, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) report dated 12th August 2025 recommended demolition

The MCGM withheld this TAC report from the Petitioners and subsequently disconnected water and electricity supply

1. Whether the impugned communications for demolition under Section 354 are sustainable when the factual foundation of the "dangerous" condition has changed due to subsequent repairs.

2. Whether the non-disclosure of the TAC report to the affected tenants violated the principles of natural justice.

The court primarily applied Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which empowers the Commissioner to require the removal or repair of structures deemed to be in a "ruinous state" or "dangerous to passers-by"

The court also relied on the principle of transparency and natural justice, emphasizing that reports forming the basis of administrative action must be shared to provide an "effective opportunity" to respond

The Court observed that the MCGM failed to provide the TAC report to the Petitioners despite repeated requests, thereby depriving them of a fair opportunity to contest the C-1 classification

Substantively, the Court noted that while the TAC report in August 2025 indicated a need for demolition, the Petitioners had since completed extensive repair work, as evidenced by an affidavit and photographs dated 12th June 2026

The Court reasoned that because the factual foundation—the "dangerous and ruinous condition"—no longer existed, the impugned notices lost their legal validity. Since there was no longer an "imminent danger to life or property," the drastic measure of demolition under Section 354 was no longer warranted based on the outdated assessment

The Court directed the MCGM to immediately reconnect water and electricity supplies and restrained them from further disconnections based on the quashed notices

The Court clarified that Respondent No. 2 retains the liberty to conduct a fresh inspection and pursue statutory action if the present condition of the building justifies it, provided due process is followed