Important Point:- Corporation authorities too are duty bound to resort to appropriate steps if it is found that a building/structure is in a dilapidated condition or dangerous for the occupants to live. The opinion of the experts reached with regard to the condition of the building being subjective opinion, this court would not substitute its view, even if the opinion suffers from some errors here or there.

Naresh H. Patil, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Petitioners in Writ Petition Lodging Nos. 3002 and 3011 of 2016 are the original residents of the premises known as “Velbai Velji Arogya Bhuvan”, 196, Koliwada, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022 (for short “subject structure”). Petitioners in Writ Petition Lodging No. 2934 of 2016 are occupants of the shops on the ground floor of the subject structure.

3. Petitioners challenge the notice of eviction bearing No. AC/TN/OD/310/B & F dated 19/10/2016 issued by Designated Officer FNI, Asst. Engineer (Building & Factory), F/North Ward of Municipal Corporation, Mumbai and seek consequential reliefs. Petitioners state that respondent nos.3 to 5 are the original landlords, being trustees of “Bail Velbai Velji Bhimji Charitable Trust”, having their registered office at Godavari Chamber, 43th Floor, S. V. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400 067. It is alleged that at the behest of respondent nos.3 to 5, the Corporation issued impugned notice. Petitioners are under constant threat of demolition of the subject structure. Petitioners further state that they have submitted relevant documents to respondent no.2, namely, (a) structural audit report by M/s. V. J. Joshi & Associates, (b) structural audit report by M/s. Viztech Consultants, (c) structural audit report by Vastu Associates with N.D. Test Report conducted by EN Lab Services, registered structural engineer, (d) structural audit report by Mr. Milind Patil, structural engineer having B.M.C. License No. STR/P86 with N. D. Test Report conducted by M/s. R. K. Infra Technoclinc Services Pvt. Ltd., appointed by the shop owners of the suit premises and (e) structural audit report dated 15/2/2016 by Veermata Jinabai Technological Institute (VJTI). The petitioners objected to the decision of respondent no.2 in declaring the subject structure in C-1 category (building to be demolished).

4. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPL No. 3002 of 2016 submitted that though the subject structure is old, it is in repairable condition. Petitioners are residing in the subject structure since last many years. In case the subject structure is demolished, the petitioners would be homeless and would face severe hardship. It is submitted that at the behest of the landlords, the Corporation authorities have acted contrary to the established procedure and decided to pass order to demolish the subject structure. Learned counsel submits that Technical Advisory Committee's report (TAC) is not reasonable and sound one. Said report is erroneous one, it does not consider in depth the reports submitted by the experts submitted on behalf of the petitioners. The TAC has conveniently brushed aside the opinion of the experts/structural engineers favoring that the subject structure could be repaired and need not be demolished. The guidelines, framed by the Division Bench of this court (Coram: Anoop Mohta & A. A. Sayed, JJ.) in Original Side Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., decided on 23/6/2014, were not followed. Learned counsel submitted that at this stage if a further report from reputed institute like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) is called, the petitioners would be bound by the said report irrespective of its conclusion. Learned counsel referred to the relevant reports of structural engineers, the TAC report and other relevant documents on record. The petitioners are ready to bear the cost of repairs.

5. Mr. Udaipuri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPL No. 3011 of 2016, submitted that the subject structure is in a repairable condition. According to their estimate, around Rs.30 lacks would be required for repairing the subject structure which the petitioners/occupants are ready to bear. Certain persons who a