JUDGMENT :

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. Petitioners stated that they are the tenants of building known as 'Omar Manzil' situated at Kalina Church Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 029 and petitioner no. 12 is the Society formed by the tenants. Respondent No. 1 is a Municipal Commissioner and Respondents No. 2 and 3 are respectively the Assistant Municipal Commissioner and the Designated Officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation's H/ East Ward.

3. This petition impugns a notice under Section 354 and 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, “MMC Act”) and the report of Technical Advisory Committee dated 08.11.2017 concerning the building known as 'Omar Manzil' situated at Kalina Church Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai. Besides, the petitioners are seeking writ, commanding officials of Corporation to grant permission to repair the building at their cost.

4. It is stated in para no. 3 of the petition that the building 'Omar Manzil' is a ground plus three RCC, residential-cum-commercial building with 9 flats and 5 shops, constructed about 40 years ago of which, one Mohd. Yusuf Omar was the owner. It is further stated that Mr. Mohd. Omar sold building to Respondents No. 4 to 8 in the year 2007. Petitioners have placed on record the particulars of the rent (old and revised) for the premises in their occupation. Petitioners stated that though they were paying rent regularly, the landlord neglected to repair the building and failed to keep it in habitable condition and as such in the year 2011 all the tenants expended about 25 lakhs and repaired it. In para no. 6 of the petition, it is stated that Corporation issued a notice to the tenants under Section 354 of the MMC Act on 24.05.2017, without first issuing notice under Section 353B(3) of the MMC Act. It is further stated that before issuing notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act, the officials of the Corporation are required to inspect the building and if found necessary then issue notice. It is petitioners' contention that the notice under Section 354 is never issued in isolation but Corporation is under obligation to ask the tenants and landlords to conduct structural audit and submit report to the Corporation. It is only after receiving audit report from tenants and landlord, the Corporation is required to place it before The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). It is stated the Technical Advisory Committee is expected to conduct its own inspections, tests and then decide whether the building is required to be pulled down. It is submitted that having not carried out the exercise, the impugned notice cannot be executed. In para no. 7, it is alleged that the notice dated 24.05.2017 issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act was issued at the behest of the landlord in as much as the notice makes a reference to report submitted by the landlord to the Corporation. It is therefore stated in para no. 7 that the Official of the Corporation, without being satisfied about the condition of the building, mechanically acted upon a report submitted by the landlord and issued notice under Section 354 of MMC Act. It is denied that the building is in ruinous condition and is likely to fall. It is petitioners' case that after receiving impugned notice, they appointed a structural Engineer namely M/s. CSR Consultants and Associates, to conduct structural audit. It is further stated that the audit report prepared by M/s. CSR Consultants and Associates was forwarded to the Corporation on 18.09.2017 and only thereafter the Corporation constituted a Technical Advisory Committee. It is stated that committee members visited building on 07.11.2017 and held a farcical hearing on 08.11.2017.

5. Petitioners, in para no. 8(b) alleged that one of the landlords Mr. Rafiq Khan was a former Municipal Corporator from the ward within which the building falls and he influenced