The judgment emphasizes the discretion of the Commissioner in choosing the best alternative to protect public safety under Section 322 of the Kamataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, and the need for reasonableness in exercising such discretion.

( 1 ) THE tenants of a commercial premises situate at Sayyaji Rao Road, mysore have filed these writ petitions challenging the notice issued by the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation purporting to exercise his powers under Section 322 (1) of the Kamataka Municipal Corporations act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity), and the order dated 14-1-1999 of the Standing Committee, Mysore City Corporation, passed in appeal, confirming the action taken by the Commissioner.

( 2 ) FEW facts relevant for the purpose of this case as found from the records are as under:"on the Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore which is a busy area, there is situate a commercial-cum-residential building bearing Nos. 209 to 215, 215/1, 216/2 and 216/3 consisting of about 12 shops. Various portions of this building are occupied by the appellants as tenants, doing business. This building had originally belonged to one Atiguppe Suryanarayana shetty. The said Suryanarayana Shetty sold the property to one bhavani Enterprises, respondent 4 herein by means of a registered sale deed dated 16-3-1984. Subsequent to the purchase of the property, it appears on a representation given by the purchaser that the building is old, dilapidated, the Corporation authorities of Mysore had an inspection of the building conducted by its Assistant Executive Engineer who opined that the building was in a dilapidated condition. On the basis of this report, a notice came to be issued on 8-4-1985 to the owner of the building directing him to demolish the same on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The tenants coming to know of this action initiated by the corporation authorities filed an appeal under Section 444 of the Act before the Standing Committee of the Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee" for brevity), Mysore simultaneously also approaching the Civil Court for protection of their possession of the premises by filing a suit in O. S. No. 225 of 1985. The Civil Court initially had granted an injunction in favour of the tenants; subsequently it appears that the suit came to be dismissed. The "committee", had allowed the appeals of the tenants. Against the said order of the "committee", the 4th respondent herein who was not made a party in the appeal before the "committee", had challenged the said order by filing a writ petition in W. P. No. 17148 of 1988. Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal filed by the tenants before the Standing Committee as, he would be primarily liable for any damage caused to any person on account of the building falling down. Learned Single Judge also rejected the contention of the tenants that the writ petitioner did not have the locus standi to challenge the order of the Standing Committee, thus remanded the matter to the file of the Standing Committee to rehear the appeal after notice. The said order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-11-1996 came to be challenged by the tenants by filing a writ appeal in W. A. No. 10139 of 1996. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by its order dated 18-6-1997 concurring with the view of the learned Single Judge. After the matter was remanded, the Standing Committee though was exercising the appellate powers on account of the serious contentions raised by the rival parties, and also having regard to the interest of the tenants who were carrying on the business, conducted a detailed enquiry by permitting the parties even to lead evidence and also making a spot inspection to get as correct a picture as possible regarding the nature of the building. After this exercise, by its reasoned order dated 14-1-1999, dismissed the appeals. It has noted "that the building was about 70 to 75 years old, built of mud brick wall with surakhi plaster. That the building is dilapidated and is situate in a crowded place, and the nature of the building is s