1. This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 19.12.2015 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai, in Draft Notice of Motion in L. C. Suit No. 3379 of 2015, thereby refusing ad-interim relief to the appellants.

2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows:

The appellants herein are the occupants and owners of their respective flats and shop premises in the building known as 'Manish Apartment'. Respondent No.3 is 'Parle Palace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.', which is consisting of twelve residential premises and five shops. There were in all 17 tenants in the said building. The building consists of five floors. On the ground floor, there were shop premises and from 1st to 4th floors, there were residential premises. It is an admitted fact that, except for the two tenants; one that of commercial premises and the other that of residential premises, all other tenants have vacated premises in their possession. It is also common ground between the parties that respondent No.3-Society has entered into a Development Agreement with respondent No.4-Builder. It is admitted that with effect from December, 2016, the Builder is going to provide the occupants the rent for the alternate premises.

3. In the backdrop of these facts, the appellants have challenged the notice dated 14.03.2011 issued by Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the MMC Act, directing the appellants to vacate the suit premises, so that the building can be demolished, as it has become dilapidated and dangerous not only to the occupants thereof but also to the passersby.

4. As per the appellants, it was the responsibility of Respondent-Municipal Corporation and respondent No.3-society to carry out structural audit of the building. However, no structural audit was carried out by them. Conversely, the appellants got the structural audit of the building, done by various independent authorities, like, Veermata Jijabai Technical Institute (VJTI), Sardar Patel College of Engineering (SPCE) etc. However, respondent No.1-Corporation failed to take into consideration those structural audits and, on the basis of its own report, respondent-BMC has issued the impugned notice. It is urged that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 be restrained from acting upon the said notice, otherwise the appellants will come on the street in the absence of the premises in their possession.

5. The interim relief to that effect claimed in the Notice of Motion came to be strongly resisted by the respondent No.1-the Municipal Corporation. It was submitted that the structural audit reports produced by the appellants are based on the visual inspection of the building, whereas, structural audit report submitted by respondent No.3-Society is based on different tests carried out by the Structural Engineer, as per the guidelines issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1135 of 2014. It was also submitted that the officers of the respondent No.1-the Municipal Corporation had visited the suit building, inspected the same and found it to be in a dilapidated condition and, thus, it was urged that the building needs to be immediately pulled down and reconstructed, otherwise there is danger to the lives of the occupants and the passersby.

6. Respondent No.3-Society also resisted this Notice of Motion by submitting that, except for the one occupant in residential premises and the other occupant in shop premises, all other tenants in respondent No.3 society have vacated the building since three years back. It was submitted that even as per the structural audit reports produced by the appellants, the life of the building cannot be for more than five years even if huge repair expenses are made and, therefore, respondent No.3-Society had decided to redevelop the suit property. Accordingly, reports were submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "TAC"). The said Committee considered the reports. The members of the Committee a