The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court's role is to address the process by which decisions regarding building demolition are reached, rather than assessing the structural condition of the building. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of timely intervention for the preservation and upkeep of buildings.

JUDGMENT

Prithviraj K Chavan, J. - By this appeal, the appellants have impugned an order dated 14th September, 2020 passed in Notice of Motion No.1946 of 2018 in L.C. Suit No.2361 of 2015 by which, the City Civil Court has restrained the defendants/respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply of building known as 'Gaurav' at Harishankar Joshi Road, Dahisar (East), Mumbai (for short the 'suit building') till one day prior to the eviction of the occupants therein. The trial Court had rejected relief sought in terms of prayer clause (b).

2. Facts in brief are as under;

The appellant is a Co-operative Housing Society Limited having its office at Dahisar. The suit building was constructed in the year 1973-1974. It comprises total 44 flats and 8 shops. The occupants of the suit building having found that it requires huge expenditure for repair work, majority of the members of the society thought it fit to go for re-development and, therefore, appointed an architect.

3. Meanwhile, the respondents-Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short 'M.C.G.M') issued a notice qua the suit building under section 353B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 on 2nd July, 2015. After inspecting the same, by another notice dated 9th July, 2015, the respondents had asked the appellants to get the structural audit done as the suit building was found to be in a highly dilapidated and dangerous condition.

4. By a notice dated dated 28th July, 2015, the respondents issued another notice under section 354 of the M.M.C Act (impugned notice) on the basis of structural audit carried out by M/s. Space, Design and Development at the behest of the respondents. Since there were two conflicting structural audit reports, the matter was referred to Technical Advisory Committee (for short "TAC".) The respondents declared the suit building in C-1 category. The appellants, therefore, approached the City Civil Court by way of the present suit.

5. Meanwhile, the respondents had asked Reliance Energy to disconnect the electricity supply to the suit building vide notice dated 9th May, 2018. On 18th May, 2018, the respondents issued a letter to the appellants to attend the meeting on 19th May, 2018 before the Assistant Commissioner, R/North Ward qua the suit building.

6. On 8th June, 2018, another notice under section 353B under the M.M.C Act came to be issued asking the appellants to carry out structural audit of the suit building through M.C.G.M Panels Structural Engineer namely Mr. Nilesh Pandit on 16th July, 2015. According to the appellants, Nilesh Pandit was not authorized to inspect the suit building as he has a licence only to carry out structural audit of buildings comprising of ground plus three, whereas, the suit building is ground plus four.

7. Grievance of the appellants is also that the order of TAC has neither been communicated nor an opportunity of hearing has been given to them. The TAC has not sent its Engineer to inspect the suit building.

8. The respondents, on the other hand, have come up with the case that the suit building is more than 30 years old which has been classified in C-1 category on the basis of the inspection report of the structural Engineer. An opportunity has been given to the appellants whose authorized persons were present when the members of the TAC conducted the inspection. According to the respondents, when the suit building was inspected on 1st July, 2015, Mr. R.R. Karnik and Mr. Ashish Pandya, Secretary and Chairman of the Society were present. It is the contention of the respondents that structural members at the ground floor are in a highly dilapidated condition due to which the suit building is likely to collapse. Reinforcement in the structural members has been corroded badly and horizontal cracks throughout the length have been developed in the beam. Therefore, the respondents were constrained to issue a notice dated 2nd July, 2015 under section 353B of the M.M.C Act to the appellants for carrying out structur