ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order as contained in memo no. 106/6-5 dated 25.01.2020 passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Madhupur-respondent No. 4, whereby the respondent No. 5 has been directed to demolish the building, situated at Holding No. 0080001923000 XI (New), corresponding to Holding No. 74(Old), ward No. 13, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Madhupur, District- Deoghar (hereinafter referred as the said building) from where, according to the petitioners, they have been carrying on their business as tenants for about 40 years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in possession of rented shops in the said building for about 40 years on payment of monthly rent regularly. The building was originally owned by Mohan Lal Keshab Prasad Gutgutia. The respondent no. 5 being son of late Mohan Lal Keshab Prasad Gutgutia served a notice dated 03.01.2020 to the tenants including the petitioners for vacating the rented premises on the ground that the said building was in dilapidated condition and was required to be demolished. The petitioners replied the said notice on 20.01.2020 stating that the part of the building under their occupation was in good and habitable condition and there was no apprehension of loss of life and property. The respondent no. 5 had already made an application before the respondent no. 4 on 21.09.2019, seeking permission to demolish the said building due to its shabby condition. Pursuant to the said application, the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 1445/6-5 dated 30.09.2019 requested the Executive Engineering, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Deoghar-respondent no. 3 to enquire the condition of the said building and to submit a report. The respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 1399 dated 02.12.2019 informed the respondent no. 4 that the building of the respondent no. 5 (building in question) in which the petitioners were tenants, was in dilapidated condition and, therefore, permission to demolish the same might be given. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 passed the order as contained in memo no. 106/6-5 dated 25.01.2020, directing the respondent no. 5 to demolish the building in question due to its dilapidated condition.

3. It is further submitted that only some portion of the said building is in bad shape and damaged condition, whereas the portion of the building occupied by the petitioners is in good condition which is not required to be demolished.

4. It is also submitted that the impugned order dated 25.01.2020 is dehors the provisions of section 387(1) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2011’), which provides that if on information received, the Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer is satisfied that any building is unfit for human habitation and is not capable of being rendered fit at a reasonable expense, he shall serve upon the owner of the building and upon any other person having an interest in the building, whether as a lessee or as a mortgagee or otherwise, a notice to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice as to why an order of demolition of the building should not be made. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, notice was also required to be served upon the petitioners who are the tenants of the said premises before passing the order of demolition. The order dated 25.01.2020 passed behind the back of the petitioners should not be given effect to, as they being the tenants of the premises owned by the respondent no. 5 are the interested persons, who were supposed to be heard by the respondent no. 4 before passing the order of demolition. The petitioners being the tenants of the building in question were in better position to inform the respondent no. 4 about the condition of the building in question, however, the same was not taken into account by the said respondent. The respondent nos.3 and 4 came to an erroneous conc