ORDER :

1. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing OWP Nos. 494 & 929 of 2018. The petitioners claim that they are tenants in occupation of the shops in the building, which has been ordered to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation, Jammu. The same having been declared unsafe.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are tenants in various shops on the ground floor of the building, which has been ordered to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation, Jammu, as the same has been declared unsafe. It is a devise adopted by the owner of the building to evict the petitioners, as otherwise he has no other ground on which the petitioners can possibly be evicted. Before issuance of the public notice for demolition of the building, the petitioners were never afforded any opportunity of being heard during the course of the proceedings by the Corporation or any other authority, whereby the building was declared unsafe. Section 258 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 (for short ‘the Act’) clearly provides that opportunity of being heard has to be afforded to the owner and the occupier. Indisputedly, the petitioners are the occupiers in the building. Disputing the stand of the respondents that the building has become unsafe, reference has been made to the report (Annexure-E) of an Engineer stating that the building appears to be in a safe condition.

3. Referring to the modus operandi adopted by the owner of the building, it was submitted that the process to get the building declared unsafe was initiated by him way back in the year 2006 when representation was made by him to the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the owner of the building kept quiet for a decade. Fresh representation was submitted on 25.07.2017. The mere fact that the building did not fall during this period shows that it had not become unsafe. Even the local Commissioner appointed by the Court had submitted the report without even issuing any notice to the petitioners. Such a report which otherwise is also not giving any details, cannot be relied upon. It was further submitted that in case the first floor or any part of the building has become unsafe, the petitioners are ready and willing to get the same demolished at their own cost.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that due process was followed before the building was declared unsafe. On 27.10.2017, the matter was dealt with after getting the report from the concerned Executive Engineer and the building was declared unsafe. The order was conveyed to the owner. Thereafter, on the request of the owner of the building, even estimate was prepared for demolition of the building as he pleaded inability to execute the project on account of non availability of the manpower with the technical expertise. The amount was deposited by him.

5. Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the building submitted that the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the notices for demolition of the building being unsafe and also to declare the same to be safe. As far as demolition notices are concerned, there is no illegality therein. The building was constructed more than 100 years back. The photo-graphs placed on record clearly show that the same is in a dilapidated condition. Some portion at the ground floor was repaired in the year 1974. That was also more than four decades back. He had filed application to the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Act so as to avoid any untoward incident as in case the building falls and any casualty happens, the owner may be held liable. The report produced by the petitioners is of Approved Valuer of the Corporation and not the Structure Engineer. It has been so mentioned in the report itself. As against that the department had got the building inspected through Engineers and the consistent opinion is that building has become unsafe and can fall at any time. Even