Back
2026 Supreme(All) 37
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, GARIMA PRASHAD, JJ.
Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 3256 of 2026
Decided On : 20-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Tenancy and Demolition
Act Referred
UTTAR PRADESH REGULATION OF URBAN PREMISES TENANCY ACT : S.21(1), S.21(2), S.21(2)(e), S.4
Headnote
(B) Right of tenants versus public safety - Tenancy rights do not supersede the duty to ensure public safety in case of dangerous structures - Tenants can seek redress under Tenancy Act but may not obstruct demolition actions. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought demolition of a dilapidated building posing a danger to public safety—built on notice issued by municipal authorities, reporting its ruinous condition. Despite complaints, a part of the building collapsed, necessitating action.
Findings of Court:
The building was found sufficiently dangerous, justifying demolition and tenant rights could not delay this process; tenants were directed to vacate.
Issues: The primary question was the balance of tenant rights versus municipal authority obligations to ensure public safety.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that public safety concerns must take precedence over private tenancy rights, permitting immediate demolition of unsafe structures and enforcing tenant eviction where necessary.
Result: Petition allowed; building to be demolished within two weeks.
For the Petitioners: Trivikram Singh
For the Respondents: Abhishek Kumar Yadav, C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for demolition of a dilapidated building. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding tenants' rights and litigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. statutory framework for tenant protection versus demolition. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. public safety overrides individual tenancy rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court orders immediate demolition of the building. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Garima Prashad, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the building owned by the petitioner/Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti, situated at Inglishialine, House No. S-21/71-A, Varanasi, which, according to the petitioner, is in a highly dilapidated condition and poses imminent danger to passers-by as well as to persons residing in the building and its neighborhood.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3– Nagar Nigam, Varanasi issued a notice dated 03.08.2021 under Section 331(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1959”), directing demolition of the unsafe structure within seven days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representations dated 03.08.2021, 13.08.2021 and 17.08.2021 before the concerned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the Municipal Commissioner sought a report from Police Station Sigra, which submitted a detailed report dated 21.08.2021 confirming that the building had become dilapidated and required demolition. Despite the aforesaid, no effective action was taken. Consequently, on 29.08.2025, a portion of the building collapsed, disrupting traffic and posing serious risk to public safety.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the notice regarding the dangerous building was issued in 2021 and that a part of the structure has already been demolished by the petitioner. However, certain tenants continue to reside in the remaining portion, which has not been repaired. It is further stated that one tenant has instituted Original Suit No. 2307 of 2021 against the owner and that proceedings are still pending, which fact has allegedly been concealed by the petitioner.
5. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the pendency of litigation has been duly disclosed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that a Suit No. 1977 of 2021 was filed by a tenant Rita Jaiswal, wherein interim injunction was initially declined but subsequently granted in appeal, but the suit itself came to be dismissed in default on 17.03.2023. As on date, no interim protection subsists in her favour. It is further submitted that tenant Vinod Kumar has instituted Suit No. 2307 of 2021 seeking permanent injunction, however, no interim relief has been granted therein. His earlier claim of ownership before the Small Causes Court also stood withdrawn. Similarly, a third tenant Anant Kumar filed Suit No. 2971 of 2021 seeking injunction, but he too has failed to secure any interim protection from any competent court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that none of the tenants has obtained any stay against demolition or dispossession from any competent court. Importantly, no proceedings have been initiated challenging the demolition notice dated 03.08.2021. It is contended that while the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Tenancy Act, 2021 protects tenant rights, such protection cannot override statutory powers under Section 331 of the Act of 1959 where a structure is found to be ruinous and dangerous to human life.
7. This Court has examined the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 so as to ensure that the right available to a
