The Municipal Corporation must determine building fitness without imposing undue burdens on tenants, such as providing structural inspection reports without due procedure.

For the appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Mitruka, Mr. Aayush Mitruka, Mr. Raghav Agarwal For the Siliguri Municipal Corporation : Mr. Bijoy Bikram Das For the respondent nos.6 and 7 : Mr. Rajat Das, Mrs. Anumita Lahiri Heard on : 23.07.2025 Judgment on : 23.07.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present challenge has been preferred against the order of a learned Single Judge passed in a writ petition whereby the appellant had challenged a decision taken by the Commissioner of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation, directing the appellant/occupant of the concerned building to furnish a structural inspection report on a „Push Over Analysis‟ from an empanelled engineer.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that, within the contemplation of Section 268 of the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 , which is the relevant provision in the present case, in the event the Commissioner, upon any information in his possession, is satisfied that any building is “unfit for human habitation” and is not capable, at a reasonable expense, of being rendered fit, he shall serve upon the owner of the building and upon any other person having an interest in the building, whether as a lessee, 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. In the present case, initially such notice was issued, according to the appellant, only on the landlord/owner of the building. The appellant claims to be a tenant of the building, which is disputed by the landlord, who is also appearing through counsel before us.

3. Be that as it may, it is not in doubt that the appellant is an occupant of the ground floor of the building.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since no notice under Section 268 (1) was given at the initial stage to the appellant/occupier, the appellant was compelled to move this court and obtain an order whereby such notice was directed to be issued. Thereafter, an undertaking to carry out the necessary repair work was initially filed by the appellant, which was not accepted by the respondent Corporation.

5. Subsequently, pursuant to another order of this court, directing the appellant to furnish an undertaking by disclosing the exact nature of repairs proposed to be undertaken by the appellant, the appellant did file such undertaking, upon which the impugned order of the Commissioner of the Siliguri Municipal Corporation dated November

12, 2024 was passed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the formation of opinion as to whether a building is unfit for human habitation, as contemplated in Section 268 (1) of the 2006 Act, has to be done in the context of sub-section (6) of the said Section, which provides that in determining, for the purpose of the section, whether a building is “unfit for human habitation”, regard shall be had to its condition in respect of the matters as specified therein, including the stability of the building. Thus, it is argued that the very insistence of the Corporation on a structural engineer‟s report itself shows that the initial formation of opinion regarding the building being “unfit for human habitation” was tainted. Before formation of opinion, the Corporation had to have a similar report and as such, the insistence on a further report at the cost of the appellant is superfluous.

7. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge proceeded to interpret the various provisions of the Section but erroneously arrived at the finding that ther