The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on conflicting structural audit reports and the interpretation of Section 433-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act to determine the maintainability of the suit and the fitness of the premises for occupation.

JUDGMENT

R.G. Avachat, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24/8/2018, passed by 11th Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division (C.J.S.D.), Ahmednagar below application Exh.5 in a suit, being Regular Civil Suit (R.C.S.) No.313/2018 and the judgment and order dated 11/10/2018, passed by District Judge-5, Ahmednagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.95/2018, affirming the order dated 24/8/2018.

By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioners (plaintiffs) in R.C.S. No.313/2018 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.l Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation (AMC) - defendant No.l from demolishing the suit property pursuant to the notice dated 7/6/2018, came to be rejected.

2. The subject matter of the suit is a three storey premises (suit premises) bearing City Survey Nos.3565 and 3566/2/2, situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road (M.G. Road), Ahmednagar. On the ground floor of the suit premises, there are three shop blocks in possession of the petitioners as tenants-cum-owners thereof. The suit premises are 80 year old. It was originally owned by one Bohari family. The respondents No.2 to 9 (defendants in the suit) purchased major portion of the suit premises under three different sale deeds. The plaintiffs too purchased a small portion of the suit premises in the year 2011.

3. The AMC, vide its notice dated 7/6/2018 published in daily newspaper "Nava Maratha", called upon the owners and occupiers of the suit premises to vacate and pull down the same as the premises are said to have become dangerous for occupation. The AMC also issued a personal notice to the petitioners herein, calling upon them to vacate the suit premises on the very ground. According to the petitioners, although the suit premises have been old one, the same simply required some repairs. The respondents No.2 to 9 being the owners of major portion of the suit premises, have joined hands with the AMC authorities. They wanted the petitioners to be evicted from the suit premises without following due process of law. The petitioners, therefore, filed the suit for declaration that the notice dated 7/6/2018 is illegal one. A relief of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from taking any steps in the direction of demolition of the suit premises has also been sought for.

4. The trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. The Court found the suit premises to have been very old. The premises have been constructed in mud, stones and wooden material. According to the trial Court, the suit premises have become dangerous for occupation. The appellate Court, as well, reiterated the reasons given by the trial Court.

5. Shri S.P. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, although the suit premises have been very old, the same have not become dangerous for occupation. The notice issued by the AMC would itself demonstrate that it called upon the petitioner to effect necessary repairs. According to learned counsel, this Court, vide order dated 21/6/2019, directed the respondents No.2 to 9 to carry out the repairs to the suit premises as were suggested by the experts. In the event of their failure to carry out repairs, petitioners were permitted to do so. Pursuant to the said order, the repairs have been effected to the ground floor of the suit premises. The learned counsel took me through the three reports regarding structural audit of the suit premises. He would further submit that, the report given by the expert from the office of College of Engineering, Pune does indicate the ground floor of the suit premises to have been fit for occupation. The learned counsel, therefore, urged for setting aside the impugned order an grant of application Exh.5.

6. Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 9 would, on the other hand, submit that, admittedly the suit premises have been 80 plus. Even before the suit premises were purchased by the respondents No.2 to 9, the AMC had issued the notice to