Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. The owner built the Amar Mahal Building on plot No.86 & 87 in sub-sector-III at Chembur, Mumbai (The property/premises) in the year 1956-57, which according to the Municipal Corporation, now is in the list of dilapidated Buildings (C-1 Category) in their Disaster Management Plan, 2012. Therefore, admittedly, three notices (the notices) under section 354 (The section) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) issued from time to time, i.e., 11.6.2007, 9.5.2008 and 9.5.2013 to demolish and to vacate, being dangerous and inhabitable property/building.

2. There is no dispute that the Petitioner (in Writ Petition No.794 of 2014) is the landlord, owner and developer of the premises/property. The Respondents are some of the occupants/tenants. Some of them are the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No.707 of 2014 filed on 13.03.2014.

3. The landlord/owner has prayed to implement the notices' as the structure/premises is in dangerous and dilapidated condition. The occupants, however, are objecting to the same on various grounds, by referring to the various provisions of law which are not sufficient to divert the undisputed position on record and so also the effect and purpose of the section.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners-occupants/ tenants placed reliance upon various judgments including case of Lalbhai Tricamlal vs. The Municipal Commissioner (1908) 10 BOMLR 821). After considering the scheme and purpose of the Section and for it's implementation, it is specified that the premises should be in ruinous condition or likely to fall or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to, or passing by such structure. That is also subject to a satisfaction of the Corporation and its officers based upon the material available with them. The plain reading of the section contemplates and mandates the Commissioner to remove such structures. The section itself mandates to remove and/or demolish and/or take appropriate steps or action against the “dangerous structure”.

5. The Respondent-Corporation's satisfaction, therefore, though based upon various material and/or information, yet some Respondents/tenants are obstructing and preventing the landlord/owner from developing the property. Their entitlement, even if any, as they sought to be contended being a tenant of the premises, is quite limited. There is no bar under any provision that the owner and/or landlord cannot develop such property.

6. The Respondent-Corporation, therefore, considering the position of buildings, has been requesting the landlord/owner and occupants to take steps for safety of the buildings since 2005. Whatever may be the reason, but ultimately the Respondent-Corporation issued first notice on 11.6.2007. The Petitioner/landlord, therefore, even requested the occupants to vacate the property as the buildings are in urgent need of repairs. The permission was also sought to put-up props to support the structure wherever necessary and to erect fence on the plot and put-up cautionary board warning occupants and passersby about the dilapidated condition of the property. They did not support the position. Therefore, second notice dated 9.5.2008 was issued by the Corporation contending that the structure of building is in dilapidated condition and also called upon them to pull down the building. The Petitioner/landlord again requested the occupants to vacate the buildings/property including to the adjacent temporary shed, outhouse and garages occupants.

7. Based upon some reports obtained by the Respondents/occupants whereby it is mentioned that the structure “is safe and sound to bear design load”, they refused to vacate the premises. The disputes/conflicts between the landlord and the tenants therefore, continued. Various meetings took place, even in the year 2011 to settle the matter. The Petitioner/landlord as well as the Respondents-occupants/tenants in fact discussed the terms and conditions and they want