B.P. Colabawalla, J.

Both these writ petitions have been filed challenging the Technical Advisory Committee (for short "the TAC") report dated 22nd February, 2019 (the impugned report) and the notice issued pursuant thereto by respondent No.2 of the same date (the impugned notice) under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short "the MMC Act"). The short ground of challenge is that the impugned notice as well as the impugned report have the effect of depriving the petitioners of their occupation, livelihood and valuable immovable property and have been passed without any application of mind and is a colourable exercise of power. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that the impugned report and the impugned notice are illegal, null and void and for quashing and/or setting aside the same.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(Lodging) No. 625 of 2019 is an 80 years old lady and claims to be in use, occupation and possession of a residential premises being Room No.2, Plot No. 247, Road No.15, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 104. She claims to be in possession of this property as a tenant of respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, the said property admeasures approximately 315.17 square feet carpet area. As far as the petitioner in W.P. (Lodging) No.925 of 2019 is concerned, she is a widow, aged 61 years. She claims that she is in use, occupation and possession of her residential premises being Room No.4, Plot No. 247, Road No.15, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 104. She too claims to be a tenant of respondent No.3. Considering that the facts and the question of law are identical in both the petitions and the same impugned report and the impugned notice are challenged therein, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts as set out in W.P. (L) No. 625/2019. The building (on plot No.247) in which the room occupied by the petitioner is situated was constructed in or around 1960. This building is almost 60 years old and occupied by the tenants. According to the petitioner, over a period of last five to ten years, respondent No.3 started to take possession of various premises in the said building from its tenants/lessees, on one pretext or the other, by making appropriate payment to them. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 had indicated that it was his intention to enter into a development agreement with a reputed developer to develop the piece of land on which the said building was situated and to make profits therefrom.

4. Be that as it may, since the building was quite old, the Assistant Commissioner (P/South ward) of respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 10th January, 2014 under Section 353-B of the MMC Act, calling upon respondent No.3 (the landlord) to submit a Structural Stability Report to the effect that the building is in a sound condition. There were two further notices served on the landlord under the aforesaid provision on 12th June, 2015 and 19th September, 2017 respectively.

5. According to the petitioner, without taking any action against the landlord (respondent No.3) for not complying with the requisitions set out in the Section 353-B notices, suddenly on 1st September, 2018 respondent No.1 served a letter upon the tenants of the building informing them that the building was in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and therefore needed to be vacated so that the same could be pulled down. This letter (dated 1st September, 2018) also refers to a report submitted by the Structural Consultants of respondent No.3 namely, M/s Kumy Engineering, dated 13th August, 2017. The petitioner was also called upon to lodge their objections to the report by the said Structural Consultants.

6. Thereafter, on 11th December, 2018 respondent No.1 issu