SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 546

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Gaurang Kanth, J.
Magnum Enterprises And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And Ors. – Respondents
WPO 600 of 2025
Decided On : 14-08-2025

Advocates Appeared
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subrata Kumar Basu, Adv., Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. U.S. Menon, Adv., Mr. Abhiroop Chakraborty, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv., Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Avinash Kankani, Adv., Mr. Sagnik Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Shree Chatterjee, Adv.

The rights of tenants to repair premises under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act must be upheld, and compliance with court directives is essential in decision-making.

Headnote:(A) Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 - Section 411(1) - Writ petition challenging order for demolition/repair of premises - Petitioner contested the interpretation of the municipal order that led to the demolition without consideration of repair rights as previously directed by the Court - Court found that the prior directions were disregarded by the Executive Engineer. (Paras 6, 24-25)

(B) Compliance with Court Orders - Requirements for compliance with previous orders emphasized, with specific mention of tenants' rights to apply for necessary repairs and considerations that should be given to their representations. (Paras 20, 26)

Facts of the case:
The case traces the history of notices issued under Section 411(1) of the KMC Act concerning repairs to a building with contested ownership and tenant rights. Petitioner is contesting recent orders for demolition without allowing for potential repairs previously sought.

Findings of Court:
Court found the order passed by the Executive Engineer was non-compliant with previous orders and unjust to tenants' rights for repair.

Issues: The key issues were the interpretation and implementation of the Municipal Commissioner's orders regarding tenant rights and necessary repairs versus demolition of property.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that tenants must be afforded the opportunity to repair their premises and that due consideration must be given to their applications, in accordance with prior court orders.

Result: The Executive Engineer's order was set aside and a fresh order was to be issued in compliance with the Municipal Commissioner’s directions.

JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1.The petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the order dated 06.08.2025 issued by the Executive Engineer (C), Building Department, Borough – VII, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’), whereby it was communicated that, upon expiry of seven days, KMC officials would proceed to implement the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 10.06.2025. By the said order dated 10.06.2025, the Municipal Commissioner directed the Executive Engineer (C), Building Department, Borough – VII to repair/demolish/secure any such portion of the Western Block (Block – 2) of premises No.11, Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani, Kolkata in respect of which notice under Section 411 (1) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 had been issued, if so required for the safety of public and the inmates of the building, and to do so at the expenses of the owner.

2. This matter has a chequered history, involving multiple rounds of litigation initiated either at the instance of the landlord or tenant in respect of Western Block (Block – 2) of the premises mentioned above.

3. Respondent no. 5 is the landlord of the premises, and the petitioner is one of the tenants thereof. An Ejection Suit No.110/2005-E is pending before the Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta.

4. The respondent Corporation initially issued a notice dated 28.04.2008 under Section 411 (1) of the KMC Act, 1980. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 28.04.2014, in an appeal filed by the landlord (APOT/179/2014) quashed the said notice on the ground that neither the specific dangerous portion of the building was identified, nor a sketch map was annexed with the said notice.

5. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation issued second notice dated 16.06.2014 under Section 411 (1) of the KMC Act, which was also set aside by this Court by its order dated 13.01.2015 in WP No.1271/2014, a writ petition filed by the landlord. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed.

6. On 23.12.2017, the respondent Corporation issued third notice under  Section 411 (1) of the KMC Act, and subsequently displayed a board outside the building declaring the same to be a “Dangerous Building”. The petitioner challenged the said notice dated 23.12.2017 in WP No. 435 of 2018. By an order dated 13.09.2018, this Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent Corporation for the purpose of granting permission for repairing the rear building of the said premises, in accordance with law. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities were further directed to consider the application of the petitioner no. 1, in accordance with law. It was also directed that in case the municipal authorities reject the application of the petitioner no. 1 then they were required to give reasons for such rejection.

7. Pursuant to the said order, a joint inspection was carried out on 30.11.2018. Thereafter, by an order dated 26.12.2018, the respondent Corporation rejected the petitioner’s application for renovation and/ or repair of the said building. The petitioner challenged the order in WPO/80/2019. By order dated 04.01.2021, this Court disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh proposal for repair and directing the Corporation to decide and dispose of such application within three weeks of receipt of such proposal.

8. Subsequently, the respondent issued fourth notice dated 26.03.2021 under Section 411 (1) of the KMC Act directing the owner/occupier to repair the repairable portion and demolish the dangerous portion of the building. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 also informed the corporation authorities that no repairing or renovation work has been commenced by the landlord in respect of the portion under their occupation. Nevertheless, the petitioner no. 1 carried out the work of restoration and repairing of the western side rear building of the said premises under occupation

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top