JUDGMENT :

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. The Writ Petition was dismissed departmentally by an order dated 26th March 2019 made by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Notice of Motion seeks the restoration of the Writ Petition and, further, the restoration and continuance of a previous Division Bench order of 16th August 2018. We made it clear to Mr. G.C. Singh for the petitioners that we would restore the petition provided it was argued forthwith for admission and interim relief. He agreed. On that basis, we heard him, and, by this order, we proceed to dispose of the petition itself. Consequently, the Notice of Motion is made absolute, but only in terms of prayer clause (a).

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to three notices issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (“the MMC Act”) and an opinion/report of the MCGM’s Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”). The MCGM notices are dated 19th October 2016, 6th April 2018 and 21st May 2018 at Exhibit “K” (pages 176 to 180), Exhibit “M” (pages 213 to 223) and Exhibit “N” (page 224 to 223) respectively, and the TAC report is dated at 26th April 2017.

3. The conspectus of the petition is almost identical to nearly two dozen petitions we have heard and dealt with in the last two or three months: tenants of a building that is over 30 years old having received an evacuation notice from the MCGM, and having taken no steps by themselves or by compelling the owner to carry out essential structural repairs, then rush to court and claim (a) that the building does not need demolition or evacuation; (b) that it is structurally sound and (c) that the petitioner-tenants will continue to live there ‘at their own risk’ and will give an ‘undertaking’ to assume all liability, including to third parties. In at least nine separate judgments delivered recently we have set out the law on the subject. We begin this discussion, therefore, by noting these decisions and summarizing the principles in law that apply to such a situation. The decisions are:

(a) Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition (L) No. 1755 of 2019, decided on 24th June 2019.

(b) Inderjit Singh Sethi and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition No. 880 of 2018, decided on 9th July 2019.

(c) Ramesh Nathubhai Patel and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2016, decided on 9th July 2019.

(d) Kutbi Manzil Tenants Welfare Association vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition No. 2451 of 2018, decided on 16th July 2019.

(e) Sundar R. Gavaskar and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition No. 602 of 2019, decided on 29th July 2019.

(f) Richard Gasper Mathias and Others vs. Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition No. 2108 of 2018 decided on 1st August 2019.

(g) Vivek Shantaram Kokate and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition No. 931 of 2019, decided on 19th August 2019.

(h) Khalil Ahmed Mohd. Ali Hamdulay and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, Writ Petition (L) No. 2147 of 2019, decided on 22nd August 2019.

(i) Pandurang Vishnu Devrukhar and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Writ Petition No. 2687 of 2018, decided on 27th August 2019 (pertaining to Municipal tenants).

4. The principles of law culled from these decisions are these:

(a) It is never for a Court in exercise of its limited writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide whether a particular structure is or is not actually in a ruinous or dilapidated condition. Diwanchand Gupta vs. N.M. Shah and Others, AIR 1972 Bom 316 (K.K. Desai and G.N. Vaidya JJ.) Nathubhai Dhulaji vs. Municipal Corporation, AIR 1959 Bom 332 (Y.V. Dixit an