An occupier who is not connected with the construction of an unauthorized structure has no right to claim a hearing before demolition, but is only entitled to a reasonable time to vacate the premises.

ORDER :- The petitioner has moved the writ application challenging the two notices addressed to respondent No.6, Chandra Nath Banik, and one to the owner or occupier of premises Nos. 26 and 26/ 7, Hindusthan Park (now 26, Hindusthan Park). The two notices issued to the respondent No.6 are dated 14th July, 1978 and 28th August, 1978 issued by the District Building Surveyor, Dist. No.IX(B) and the Deputy City Architect, respectively, while the last notice is dated 1st September, 1978 signed by several officials including the City Architect and the Deputy Commissioner (A). The notice dated 14th July, 1978 issued by the D.B.S. directed the respondent No.6 that the impugned structure (i.e. the 9th and 10th storeys = 8th and 9th floors) of the said premises shown in the sketch map be demolished by the respondent No.6 failing which the demolition would be undertaken by the Corporation. The notice dated 28th August, 1978 by the Deputy City Architect fixed the date of demolition on 22nd September, 1978. The notice dated 1st September, 1978 under Section 557 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 was issued under the signature of several officers including the Deputy Commissioner(A) directing the owner or occupier of the said premises that the D.B.S. and B.I. have been empowered by the Commissioner to enter into the aforesaid premises on 22nd September, 1978 at the specified hour to carry out the demolition of unauthorised construction on 9th and 10th storeys of the building as directed by the Deputy Commissioner(P) by his order dated 30th June, 1978 under S.414 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant in respect of the 9th and 10th floors (actually it should be 8th and 9th floors or 9th and 10th storeys as appears from the Corporation record) of premises No.26 and 26/7, Hindusthan Park (now 26, Hindusthan Park, Calcutta) since 1963. He came to learn sometime in 1978 that the Corporation authorities would demolish the portion under his occupation in terms of an order dated 30th June, 1978 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter he narrated the incident as indicated hereinbefore and stated that the notice was addressed to respondent No.6 and not to him. His case is that the Corporation never did issue any notice to him to show cause or give any opportunity of hearing as to why the premises should not be demolished. He has a right to get an opportunity to place his case before the authorities otherwise there cannot be any substantial compliance of Sections 414 and 557 of the Act of 1951. It is admitted in the petition that the Corporation did start a proceeding against the respondent No.6. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent No.6 sometime in 1967 by a registered deed relinquished his right, title and interest in the said property and dedicated it to Sri Iswar Radhagobinda Jew with one Sm. Nirmala Banik as Shebait.

3. Mr. Habibullah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, in his submission stated that as an occupier of the 9th and 10th storeys of the premises in question he has the locus standi to come before this Court for the redress of his grievances. There is nothing in the statute that a person must be recorded or bona fide occupier. In this connection he has cited a decision reported in AIR 1982 Cal 314 (Ram Awatar Agarwal v. Corporation of Calcutta). According to the learned Advocate, an occupier has the full right and locus standi to be heard if he is affected in any way keeping in view of the principles of natural justice and in this connection he cited, a decision of my own in the case of Maula Bux v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1990) 1 Cal LJ 124 : AIR 1990 Cal 318: 1990 Cal LT 174 : (1990) 1 Cal 2 HN 233. Mr. Habibullahs further argument is that under Section 414 of the said Act no action can be taken under Section 557 of the Act because an occupier is not only entitled to a notice under Section 414 of the Act but also a notice unde