Municipal authorities require statutory basis to enforce repairs; private disputes must be settled in civil courts.

Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The petitioners, by way of the present writ petition, are aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the Respondent–Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation in failing to take appropriate and effective steps to ensure that the private respondent no. 4 undertakes the necessary repair and renovation work in respect of the premises situated at BD-91, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no. 4 is the owner of the said premises, and the petitioners are in occupation thereof as lessees under a Leave and Licence Agreement dated 01.06.2016. Although the said agreement expired by efflux of time on 31.05.2021, the petitioners have continued in possession of the premises. As a consequence, respondent no. 4 has initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners, which are currently pending adjudication before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat, in Title Suit No. 1201 of 2022. The petitioners allege that the subject building is in a state of disrepair and poses imminent structural and safety concerns, necessitating urgent repair and renovation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that her clients had lodged a formal complaint before the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation, whereupon the said authority caused an inspection of the premises to be conducted. Based on such inspection, the Corporation issued a show-cause notice dated 24.04.2024, directing respondent no. 4 to undertake necessary repair and renovation works. However, despite the issuance of the said notice, respondent no. 4 has failed to take any steps towards compliance.

4. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Section 222 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 , which, according to her, empowers the Board of Councillors, for sufficient reasons, to direct the owner or occupier of a building to maintain the external parts of such building, including the roof, in proper repair with lime plaster or other materials to the satisfaction of the Board. She further refers to sub-section (2) of Section 222 , which provides that in the event of default by the owner or occupier in complying with such directions, the Board may itself carry out the necessary repair work and recover the cost thereof from the defaulter. Learned counsel also relies on the provisions of Section 96A of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 , which relates to precautions in respect of dangerous structures. It is further submitted that a civil dispute between the parties is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bidhannagar, in Title Suit No. 55 of 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent–Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation submits that the impugned notice dated 24.04.2024 was issued under the authority of Section 268 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 . He submits that the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 has no application to the present case, as the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation is now governed by the 2006 Act. It is further submitted that the applicability of Section 96A of the 2006 Act arises only upon a prior declaration by the competent authority, based on objective assessment, that the building in question is dangerous or ruinous. Such a declaration, it is submitted, must be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 268 and the relevant rules framed thereunder. Consequently, it is contended that Section 96A is