Occupants of a building must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before repair or demolition work is undertaken, especially if the work is aimed at evicting the occupants.

I.P. Mukerji, J.

We are here concerned with premises No.92A Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata 7. This has several storeys. In the photographs annexed to the petition and also handed up to this Court by Mr. Ghosh, the building is in a most dilapidated condition.

2. Although the orders under Section 411(1) and 411(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act 1980 issued by the Corporation requiring its repair and for removal of the occupants therein are not on record, they have been brought to the notice of the Court by learned Counsel for the Corporation and Mr. Ghosh for the private respondents.

3. Mr. Basu, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submits that these orders were not served upon his client. His client claims to be a tenant in respect of the first, second and third floors of the said premises. Mr. Basu submits that in the guise of implementing these orders of the Corporation, there is threatened dispossession of his client.

4. Mr. Ghosh submits that the petitioner is not an occupant of the premises. It does not have the first or second or third floor. In fact, according to him, the premises is vacant.

5. Sections 411(1) and 411(2) of the said Act are in the following terms :-

"411. Power to order removal of dangerous buildings - (1) If any wall or building, or anything affixed thereto, be deemed by the Municipal Commissioner to be in a ruinous state, or likely to fall, or to be in any way dangerous, he shall forthwith cause a written notice to be served on the owner and to be put on some conspicuous part of the wall or building or served on the occupier, if any, of the building, requiring such owner or occupier forthwith to demolish, repair or secure such wall, building or thing, as the case may require:

Provided that in the case of a heritage building, the Municipal Commissioner may refer the state or the conditions thereof to the Heritage Conservation Committee for its consideration and decision.

(2) The Municipal Commissioner may, if it appears to him necessary so to do, cause a proper hoarding or fence or other means of protection to be put up at the expense of the owner of such wall or building for the safety of the public or the inmates thereof; and may, after giving them such notice as the Municipal Commissioner may think necessary, require the inmates of the building to vacate it."

6. Under Section 411(1) the Municipal Commissioner on being satisfied that the building is ruinous or dangerous may immediately ask the owner or occupier to demolish or repair or secure the building. If this sub-section is read with sub-section 2, the Commissioner is empowered to give such notice as he thinks necessary to the "inmates" of the building and require them to be evicted from it. On a harmonious construction of these two sub-sections 1 & 2, I tend to think that if a building is occupied by persons and it has to be repaired or secured by their eviction, then a proper notice has to be given to those persons before such an exercise is allowed to be undertaken by the owner or occupier, by the Corporation. The building in question is stated to have an occupier/occupiers.

7. The "inmates" have to be heard before a plan for repairing or securing the building is drawn up and executed. This is so because if it is not repaired or secured in a proper manner, they are likely to be affected by it. This can be called a civil consequence. Specially so, if the attempt to repair and secure is aimed at evicting the occupants.

8. I am of the opinion that initially the basic facts have to be established. The building has to be properly identified by Joint Special Officers appointed by the Court. At this stage, Mr. Ghosh even goes to the extent of contending that there are no second, third or fourth floors in the building. The occupancy status has to be ascertained.

9. In those circumstances, I appoint Mr. Udayan Chakraborty, Advocate of Bar Library Club at an initial remuneration of 1000 GMs and Mrs. Swati Mukherjee, Advocate, Bar Association Room N