Public safety concerns related to building stability can justify demolition orders, even when procedural issues are raised by tenants, as public interest outweighs individual rights.

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 20-12-2024

The appellants impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which declined interference to the order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 09.05.2024 in Demolition Case No. 1 of 2021. The appellants are licensees, in the building, by name ‘Yusuf Building’, carrying on commercial activities in the licensed premises, who essentially challenged the demolition order as one issued in connivance with the owner of the building, the 8th respondent, to evict them without availing the legal remedies available under the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for brevity ‘Buildings Control Act, 1982’).

2. We heard Shri Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Advocate for the Patna Metro Rail Corporation Limited (for brevity ‘PMRCL’). The State was represented by Shri Yogendra Prasad Sinha, learned AAG-7.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the impugned order is devoid of any reasons as required under Section 278 (6) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for brevity ‘Act of 2007’) and hence is bereft of a valid satisfaction on the various factors enumerated under the provision to carry out a demolition. None of the factors delineated under clauses (a) to (g) of the provision has been considered by the Municipal Commissioner. It was also argued that there was absolutely no material on record to enable the Commissioner to arrive at a finding that the building in question is unfit for human habitation. Two reports were referred to in the order, one an inspection report dated 14.12.2023 by the Director, City Planning, Patna Municipal Corporation and the other a Pre-Construction Building Condition Survey dated 12.03.2024 carried out by the PMRCL. The inspection was not conducted in the presence of the appellants or with a notice to them and the report was also not served on them. The report itself specifically indicates that the entire building was not inspected since the upper floors were locked and inaccessible. The Survey conducted by the PMRCL categorised the building as severe, only indicating that extensive repair involving removal and replacement of section of walls would be required; which does not really warrant a demolition. There was no technical personnel in the inspection team.

4. It is asserted that the appellants had undertaken to carry out the repairs of the building; in the context of the refusal of the owner, the 8th respondent so to do; consideration of which is a statutory mandate under Section 278 (2) and (3) of the Act of 2007. The ongoing work of Patna Metro cannot result in a demolition; on a mere apprehension that the building will collapse by reason of the construction work of the tunnel, carried out in the vicinity. Reliance is also placed on the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978 (for brevity ‘Act of 1978’), which has been adopted within the State of Bihar. Section 25 of the Act of 1978 specifically provides for compensation in the event of any damage, loss or injury sustained by a person’s land, building, street, road or passage as a direct consequence of any power exercised by the Metro Railway Administration. The Municipal Commissioner, the PMRCL and the 8th respondent are acting in cohorts to somehow evict the appellants. The appellants had also undertaken to close the business establishments carried on in the tenanted pr