The court held that the learned Single Judge should not have interfered with the CMC's order of demolition because the CMC had the authority to issue the order under Section 411 of the CMC Act and because the learned Single Judge did not have the expertise to conduct a judicial review of the highly technical matter of building safety and demolition.

( 1 ) PREMISES No. 90/1/2 Jaharlal Nehru Road, kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the "said building") is a multistoried building under occupation of several tenants and/or occupants. The period of construction, however, could not be ascertained from the records of the proceeding. In 1980 there had been metro railway project undertaken in chowringhee Road area. The concerned building started tilting. Objection was raised on behalf of the adjoining owners which is also a multistoried building being premises number 90/1/1, Jaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata owned by a co-operative society, commonly known as "green Land" (hereinafter referred to as "green Land" ). According to the co-operative society they first approached metro railway authority who in turn asked them to take up the issue with the adjacent building owner asking them to cause repair of the said building. The metro railway authorities did not, however, show any keen interest to sort out the problem between two building owners. The cause of tilting was a matter of dispute. It might be because of advanced age of the concerned building, it might be for the reason that the adjacent building owner did not take adequate precaution at the time of construction of their building, it might be because of the metro railway project being undertaken contemporaneously.

( 2 ) THE then concerned building owner was asked by letter dated August 14, 1981 to repair the said building. They did not. On September 17, 1981 metro Railway was approached by Green Land. On June 29, 1982 Green land approached the Corporation by making a complain as per the advice of the metro railway. From 1982 to 1997 no step was taken either by the corporation for causing an investigation as to the stability of the said building nor any proceeding was drawn up by the Corporation as against the concerned building till 1997 for about 15 years.

( 3 ) IN 1995 the present appellants purchased 5 floors of the said premises in question being ground, 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th floors from the then owners of the said building. The other two floors being 3rd and 4th floors were and still are under occupation of one Kanchan Das who was not a party to the proceeding initially. However, by an order dated September 18, 2006 we added him as a party in this appeal. In 1997 after about 15 years the Green land became active and wrote a letter to the City Architect of the Calcutta municipal Corporation giving reference to their earlier complaint and asked the Corporation to take immediate steps. This was followed by reminders given in the year 2000 by Green Land. Corporation issued a notice on August 1, 2000 under section 411 (1) of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act of 1980"), inter alia, asking the owner of the said building to forthwith demolish, repair and/or secure the said building. Objection was raised by the occupants, and/or tenants of the said premises.

( 4 ) WRIT petition was filed by the tenants challenging the notice under section 411 (1) of the said Act of 1980. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by an order dated December 19, 2000 directing the corporation to give personal hearing to all concerned and pass appropriate order in that regard. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the matter observed as follows: , 'in case the Corporation is of the opinion that the building is so dangerous that the inmates should vacate at once, in that event it may pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioners and the owner even within the said period. "

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the said order of the learned Single Judge the appropriate authority under the said Act of 1980 heard the parties and passed appropriate order for demolition. Before the Hearing Officer the parties relied upon the expert report. The expert appointed by the tenant was of the opinion that the building could be repaired to avoid danger whereas the expert appointed