Municipal authorities may exercise emergency powers to ensure public safety, allowing for expedited eviction without a prior hearing in cases of imminent danger.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondent corporation to immediately seize and resist from carrying out any demolition work beyond the declared unsafe portion of the building situated at premises no. 121/4K and 121/4L/1 Manicktala Main Road, Kolkata and further to quash memo no. B/87/III/25-26 dated 13.8.2025 to the extent it affects the petitioner’s tenancy in the said premises.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company i.e., Chandi Charan Das & Co. (P) Ltd., was inducted as a tenant on 01.11.1957 in the entire ground floor of premises no. 121/4K Manicktala Main Road, Kolkata. The tenancy was created by the then owner of the premises and has continued uninterrupted for nearly seven decades. The premises subsequently partitioned by the erstwhile owners and had been assigned to separate numbers as mentioned above. However, the tenanted portion i.e., the ground floor continued to remain in the possession of the petitioner without any physical partition. The petitioner used to pay the rent to the respondent, but a dispute arose and the respondent stopped accepting the rent. Consequently, the petitioner has been depositing the rent before the Rent Controller. On 02.08.2025, a portion of the two-storied structure at 121/4K collapsed. Thereafter, on 13.08.2025, the respondent corporation issued the impugned memo no. B/87/III/25-26 under section 412(2) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, directing vacation of the said premises.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the notice was issued without conducting any proper inspection and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Being an occupier, he ought to have been granted an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also alleges that the respondent municipality is acting in collusion with the landlord and the impugned orders have been passed to evict the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has further contended that he had instituted a Title Suit no. 198 of 2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Sealdah against the private respondents, wherein the respondent corporation has also been added as a proforma party respondent. Vide order dated 29.8.2025 the learned civil court was pleased to restrain the private respondents from evicting the petitioner from the said premises without following the due process of law till 24.09.2025.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he has been a tenant in the subject premises for several decades and that his right to alternative accommodation cannot be ignored by the respondent while removing the petitioner from the said premises.

6. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the said action of the respondent corporation in proceeding with the demolition action without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is in contravention of section 412 of the KMC Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Raj Kumar Mundra & Ors. v. Vettyattil Ravindran @ Ravindran & Ors. Report as 2007 (1) CHN 620 , (decided on 16th November, 2006) and Mrs. K. Suleha Begum v. State of West Bengal & Ors. reported as 1992(1) CLJ 389, (decided on 3rd March, 1992). It has been contended, on the strength of the aforesaid authorities, that the petitioner, being a tenant, cannot be dispossessed from the subject premises except in accordance with due process of law, and that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the