The main legal point established in the judgment is that the installation of fire fighting devices and equipments is a mandatory requirement under the Fire Safety and Fire Prevention Act, 1986 and Fire Prevention Rules, 1987, and tenants can install the devices for their safety and in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Rules, despite disputes with the landlady.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the suit filed by the Union Bank of India was disposed of with certain directions as contained in the said order. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlady-appellant has filed the appeal contending, inter alia, that the tenants have no rights to bring in any structural change to the said property. It is also submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge is in conflict with the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24th April, 2006.

( 2 ) WE have considered the said contentions in the light of the submissions made by some of the respondents who have entered appearance and also in the light of the records.

( 3 ) ON going through the records, we find that the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the mandatory requirement of installation of the fire fighting devices and equipments under the provisions of the Fire Safety and Fire Prevention Act, 1986 (for short the "act") and Fire prevention Rules, 1987 (for short the "rules" ). There are disputes between the landlady and the tenants and due to the aforesaid dispute the mandatory requirement of installation of the said devices and equipments could not be complied with. The tenants who are occupying various portions of the said building took up a stand before the learned Single Judge that they are willing to incur expenses as per their share for installing fire fighting devices and equipments so as to be in compliance with the aforesaid provisions of Act and the Rules framed thereunder. They also went to the extent of saying that they give up their right against the landlady for incurring any expenditure for installation of the fire fighting devices and equipments.

3. Although the aforesaid statements of the tenants was refuted by the counsel for the landlady-appellant on the ground that the tenants have no right to install any such device without her permission, particularly, when the same would also call for structural changes. The learned Single Judge held that since the aforesaid requirement is a mandatory requirement under provisions of the Act and the Rules, therefore, the tenants shall be allowed to get the same installed in the premises for their safety and in terms of the directions contained in the order. Under Section 7 of the said Act, the Chief Fire Officer can take steps for compliance of the provisions of the Act and claim expenses from the owner/occupier, which can be then recovered as arrears of land revenue.

( 4 ) THE contentions raised by the appellant, in our considered opinion, are not tenable as there can be no dispute to the fact that the installation of the fire fighting devices and equipments is a mandatory requirement which must be complied with and while doing so the inter se dispute between the landlady and the tenants have no relevance at all. If the landlady has failed to install the said fire fighting devices and equipments, the tenants can also come forward and get the same installed so as to be in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules for their safety and the safety of other residents and occupants of the said premises. We may also note that the appellant-landlady is also residing in the premises. We also find that the learned Single Judge has taken precaution by issuing a direction to all the tenants to engage the services of a structural Engineer to ensure that the structure of the building is in no way effected. Since the aforesaid precaution is taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the apprehension of the landlady-appellant, in our considered opinion, is misplaced and misconceived. In the light of the above observations, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.