Public safety takes precedence over tenant rights in eviction cases involving dilapidated structures.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to take adequate and effective measures to evict respondents 5 to 13, who are occupants/inmates of the shoproom, bearing Building Nos.617, 618, 619, 632, 638, 639, 640, 641, 642 and 643 in Ward Number 59 of Kozhikode Corporation.

2. Petitioners submit that they are the owners of a commercial building in Ward No.59 which is almost 160 years old, and is now in a very dilapidated condition. Petitioners would submit that the roof collapsed in major portions and it contributed to the interior and structural deterioration. Thereupon, petitioners requested respondents 5 to 13 to vacate the premises, but they refused to do so. Thereupon, Ext.P12 proceeding was initiated by the Executive Engineer directing the petitioners either to demolish or renovate the aforesaid building forthwith. After receipt of Ext.P12 notice petitioners requested respondents 5 to 13 to vacate the respective premises so that further action could be taken pursuant to Ext.P12. But they refused to agree to the said request made by the petitioners. Later, Ext.P13 reminder letter was issued directing the petitioners either to demolish or renovate the said building. The 3rd respondent Health Officer passed Ext.P15 order cancelling the license issued to respondents 5 to 13. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court for appropriate orders.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Corporation, wherein paragraphs 4 and 5 reads as follows:-

“4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed a complaint No. TP11/63502/21 dated 30.09.2021 before the 2nd respondent stating that the building including 9 shop rooms situated in front of Bairagi Madom in ward No. 59 of the Kozhikode Corporation is in dilapidated condition and it may collapse at any time. On the basis of the complaint the authorized officers of the Corporation conducted an inspection and found that the building is in bad condition, there are some cracks on the wall and roof is crumbling. The building seems to be 160 years old. The floor of the building is also in ruins. In these circumstances the respondent corporation issued Exhibit P12 notice dated 27.10.2021 to the owner of the building, Madathipathi Bairagi Madom for taking steps to demolish or to reinforce the building. No action has been taken by them, the corporation issued reminder notice dated 06.01.2022 as evidenced by Exhibit P 13.

5. The respondents 6 to 13 are conducting business in the above said building and considering the condition of the building the 3rd respondent issued Exhibit P15 order dated 23.05.2022 cancelling the license issued to the shop owners. Challenging Exhibit P15 order respondents 6 to 13 filed Writ petition No. 17308/2022 and one E.K Surendran filed another Writ Petition No. 17954/2022 before this Hon'ble court. This Hon'ble court was passed an interim order of stay of cancelling the license of the petitioner in both writ petitions.”

Going by the said counter affidavit, filed the building is almost 160 years old and is in a dilapidated condition and it may collapse at any time, and therefore a direction was issued to the petitioners to demolish or to reinforce the building.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents would submits that an appeal is pending against the proceedings now initiated, and would further submit that a report of an expert is submitted before the local authority, wherein it is reported that considering the age of the building and extent of the damage on the first floor it is strongly advised not to pr