A demolition notice under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act requires substantive evidence of danger and structural instability, not merely mechanical recitations.

ORDER

(1) The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Demolition Notice dated 27.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 136 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act .

(2) The petitioner states that he is a statutory tenant in occupation of the subject premises at Door No.328, New No.376, Mint Street, Park Town, Chennai, since 1998. The petitioner further states that the landlord, having failed to take lawful recourse under the Tamil Nadu Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, was unsuccessfully attempting to evict the petitioner through illegal means. The petitioner states that the landlord colluded with the officials of the Greater Chennai Corporation, and influenced them to issue the Demolition Notice. The petitioner further states the respondent-Corporation at the instigation of the landlord without conducting any inspection of the premises and without any structural stability report or other technical assessment report on the dilapidated or dangerous condition of the building, issued the impugned Demolition Notice under Section 136 of the Act. The petitioner states that the petitioner already filed a civil Suit, for permanent injunction against the landlord, in OS.No.1099/2025 before the learned 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same was pending. The petitioner further states that the landlord without initiating any eviction proceedings under the Tenancy Laws, was trying to indirectly evict the petitioner by adopting unlawful means. The petitioner therefore states that the impugned Demolition Notice under Section 136 of the Act, is illegal, arbitrary and non-est in law, as the same was issued with the sole object of evicting the petitioner from the subject premises. The petitioner therefore, left with no other remedy, filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3) The respondents filed a detailed counter stating that on regular inspection on 07.05.2025, the officials of the Chennai Corporation, found that the building in question which was approximately 80 years old, had four shops of which one of the shops was occupied by the petitioner herein.

The officials further found growth of vegetation in the building, cracks in the walls, and cracks in the the Madras Terrace roof in the ground and first floors. In view of the aforesaid observations found during the inspection, the respondents invoking Section 136 of the Act, issued the impugned notice. The respondents stated that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary party, i.e., the landlord of the petitioner. The respondents further stated that considering the dilapidated condition of the building and to safeguard the general public from any accident, the Greater Chennai Corporation, had issued the impugned Notice for Demolition. The respondents therefore prayed that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same was liable to be dismissed.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Demolition Notice issued under Section 136 of the Act, in the absence of any expert opinion on the structural stability of the building, was invalid and illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned notice was not in conformity with the provisions of Section 136 of the Tamil Nadu Ubran Local Bodies Act, and therefore, the impugned order issued mechanically, without application of mind, was illegal and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned notice was colour