Back
Tenants Triumph: J&K High Court Shields Shops from 'Unsafe' Eviction Ploy
In a strongly worded judgment, the has ruled that municipal authorities cannot weaponize building safety declarations to oust longstanding tenants, effectively bypassing civil eviction processes. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal quashed a controversial order by the Commissioner, upholding a court-supervised report that deemed the petitioners' shops structurally safe. The decision not only restores the tenants' livelihoods but mandates an inquiry into potential foul play behind an earlier "unsafe" label.
Decades-Old Shops Under Siege
Seven petitioners—Anoop Uppal, Anu Radha, Saroj Rajput, Dev Kumar, Sanjay Pandoh, Sitanshoo Sharma, and Raman Bajaj—have run shops on the ground floor of a building at 70 Exchange Road, Jammu, for decades. Owned by respondents Naresh Kumar Gandotra and Shobha Gandotra, the property mixes commercial and residential spaces. Trouble brewed in when the landlords approached JMC, alleging the structure was unsafe—a move the petitioners branded as a bid to evict them without court.
JMC initially directed the landlords to get a PWD certificate. On , PWD's Executive Engineer declared it unsafe, prompting a demolition notice under . Tenants challenged this in WP(C) No. 299/2025. The court ordered a fresh expert inspection on , supervised by the Additional District Magistrate, involving all stakeholders. The PWD report cleared most shops (petitioners 1-5 and 7) as safe; Shop No. 5 needed minor RCC slab repairs.
Yet, on , despite a court judgment directing JMC to reconsider strictly per the PWD report , the Commissioner ordered a private firm's audit—sparking WP(C) No. 2153/2025. The court stayed it on .
Petitioners Cry Foul, Landlords and JMC Defend
Petitioners argued the Commissioner's order defied court mandates, ignored the unchallenged PWD report, and prolonged their two-year livelihood crisis. highlighted contradictions between PWD's initial and revised reports, accusing landlords of engineering the "unsafe" tag to avoid civil suits. They invoked 's right to livelihood, decrying and .
JMC countered via preliminary objections, claiming from the prior writ and justifying the audit for an "independent" view amid report contradictions. A hearing sought PWD clarifications. Landlords echoed this, questioning the PWD report informally but filed no challenge, insisting the building remained unsafe.
Court Dismantles the Evasive Maneuver
Justice Nargal minced no words: administrative heads must defer to court-constituted expert panels. Citing State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011), the court stressed from overriding technical opinions absent perversity. The 's reinforced that commissioners can't substitute personal views for expert bodies.
Deeper scrutiny revealed "." Drawing from Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1986) and State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980), the judgment condemned where safety powers mask eviction motives. NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA (2011) barred indirect routes to prohibited ends. Gauri Shankar v. Union of India (1995) underscored commercial tenancies' lifeline value under .
The initial unsafe report, now discredited, suggested landlord influence—warranting probe. failed: shop closures despite safety clearance crippled petty traders.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Once a competent engineering authority, after conducting an extensive technical exercise under the supervision of a Magistrate, submits its report, there remains no legal justification... to doubt the findings recorded therein, unless the same is shown to be , ..."
"Reconsideration 'in light of the report' necessarily obligated the authority either to accept the findings... or... record cogent, legally sustainable and reasoned grounds for differing from such findings."
"What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly... whenever a thing is prohibited, it is prohibited whether done directly or indirectly."
"Administrative discretion cannot be exercised in a manner that jeopardizes the subsistence of citizens without lawful justification."
As echoed in coverage by legal portals, the ruling spotlights how
"authorities cannot adopt indirect methods... to evict tenants,"
prioritizing due process.
Relief Restores Livelihoods, Probes Misconduct
The impugned July 26 order stands quashed as
"arbitrary and contrary to the binding directions."
Petitioners regain safe shops immediately; landlords fix Shop No. 5 per specs. Crucially:
"The petitioners shall be permitted to use and occupy the shops which have been declared structurally safe..."
The Chief Secretary must form an inquiry committee within two weeks to probe the initial unsafe report's origins—collusion? Mala fides?—reporting in six weeks. Errant PWD/JMC officers face Rs. 10,000 per petitioner (Rs. 70,000 total) from salaries; Commissioner liable if culpable. Contempt proceedings closed.
This precedent fortifies tenant protections, curbing administrative overreach, and signals zero tolerance for livelihood sabotage via bogus safety scares. Petty traders breathe easy, but officials tread warily.
