Point of Law: Letters Patent Appeals - Rent Control and Eviction - Tenant - Restrictions on user of buildings and removal of dangerous buildings - Saving inheritance of High Court - Power conferred under Section 258 is a power manifestly in public interest and is a reasonable restriction on right to carry on trade or business within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) of the Constitution. Thus, in absence of a clear demonstration of abuse of discretion, mala-fides, caprice or perversity, a Court will not interfere to set aside such a notice.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. By a common order and judgment dated 19.09.2019, two writ petitions i.e. OWP Nos. 494/2018 and 929/2018, one filed by Avtar Singh and Vinod Sharma and the other filed by Satpal Sharma and three others, have been dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved, the writ petitioners have filed two separate Letters Patent Appeals i.e. LPA Nos. 236/2019 and 284/2019 which are being disposed of by this common order and judgment.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by the appellants (writ-petitioners), we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of factual antecedents, leading to filing of these appeals.

3. The dispute, which was subject matter of adjudication in the twin writ petitions, relates to a building being House No. 1, Pacca Danga, Jammu. The appellants before us are the old tenants in the shops on the ground floor of the said building which is owned by respondent No. 5. As per the appellants, respondent No. 5 for the past some time had been pressing upon them and other tenants in the building to vacate the premises under their occupation, so that he could rent out these shops to the new tenants for higher premium and rentals. Having failed to coerce the appellants into vacation of the said shops under their tenancy, respondent No. 5 devised a plan to get rid the tenants of the shops. As is the allegation of the appellants, the respondent No. 5 in connivance with the District Administration and the Jammu Municipal Corporation (for short ‘JMC’) Authorities managed to declare the whole building in which the shops under occupation of the appellants are housed as unsafe. This was done by the Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation vide his Order No. JM/PS/Com/1640 dated 06.11.2017 whereby the Commissioner granted permission for demolition of the said building and, as a consequence whereof, the Executive Engineer, JMC, Division Trikuta Complex, Dogra Hall, Jammu vide a public Notice No. MJ/Tech/T/4636 dated 27.02.2018 notified to all the occupants of the aforesaid building including the appellants herein to vacate the premises under their occupation within 15 days so that the operation of demolishing the existing building is carried out on behalf of the Commissioner, JMC, Jammu.

4. Faced with the aforesaid public notice, the appellants herein filed two separate writ petitions seeking, inter-alia, a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the order of the Commissioner, JMC Jammu dated 16.11.2017 (supra) and a public notice dated 27.02.2018 (supra) issued by respondent No. 4. They also sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the aforesaid building which houses the shops under their tenancy as safe or at least safe with respect to the shops under the occupation of the appellants. The appellants also sought a direction to the respondents not to demolish the said building.

5. The impugned action of JMC was assailed primarily on the following grounds:

(i) That the impugned notification issued by respondent No. 2 and a public notice issued by respondent No. 4 are bad in the eye of law, in that, they have been issued without adopting due process of law.

(ii) That the decision to declare the building as dangerous and unsafe has been taken by the Municipal Authorities at their back, in that, they were never associated with any inspection claimed to have been undertaken by the said Authorities to asses the condition of the building.

(iii) That the building where the source of livelihood of the petitioners i.e. shops are situated, has been declared unsafe by the Municipal Authorities without serving upon them any prior notice and, therefore, they were deprived of a fair opportunity of being heard.

(iv) That the decision to declare the aforesaid building unsafe has been taken by the Municipal Authorities not on the basis of any relevant material, but only to give wrongful benefit to respondent No. 5 and to enable him to throw out the appellants from the shops under their tenancy wit