[2022] 16 S.C.R. 200

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
RATILAL S. PUJARA (SINCE DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS.
v.
MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5825 of 2022)
AUGUST 25, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – ss.353B and 354
– Demolition of building – Notice issued to Respondent No. 4-housing
society u/s.354 of MMC Act in respect of whole building which was
identified as dilapidated and dangerous – The said notice was issued
after satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner in accordance with
the provision of s.354 of MMC Act – An eviction notice was also
issued to the appellants for eviction from flat occupied by them –
There was an earlier dispute between appellant and society relating
to some unauthorised changes in the structure of disputed flat
occupied by the appellant – Civil suit filed by the appellant in this
regard was dismissed and High Court in appeal directed the parties
to maintain status quo – Appellant challenged the two notices issued
by the Municipal Corporation – High Court refused to set aside the
two notices on the ground that the building was ruinous, dilapidated
and dangerous and unfit for human dwelling – On appeal, held:
Appellant did not set out anything specific to demonstrate any
perversity or manifest illegality in the satisfaction recorded by the
Municipal Commissioner – Merely because the Municipal
Corporation was made party to proceedings initiated by the
appellants against society regarding alterations made in their
occupied flat (earlier dispute) would not mean that Municipal
Corporation cannot carry out an audit of the structure as a whole,
as mandated by law – The satisfaction recorded by the Municipal
Commissioner was in accordance with the due procedure prescribed
by law and it was not vitiated by any perversity or illegality, thus,
there existed no ground to interfere with the impugned notices.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 200
200

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
 HELD: 1. Building in question had been constructed in
the year 1967 and is about 55 years old. It is settled law under
the MMC Act that once a building completes the prescribed
period of life under the statute i.e., 30 years, a structural audit is
required to be carried out for certifying its stability and safety for
human dwelling mandatorily under the provisions of Section 353B
of the 1888 Act. The audit has to be carried out in terms of the
legal provisions and within the time specified and if not, then it is
the Municipal Commissioner who can ensure that such an audit
is carried out, or if there is no co-operation, he can come to an
independent conclusion. [Para 14][205-G-H; 206-A-B]
2. The appellants did not set out anything specific in the
Writ Petition demonstrating any perversity or manifest illegality
in the satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner to
invoke the powers of the High Court to interfere with the same.
The dispute in the First Appeal and the Writ Petition are
completely different having different dimensions and no inter se
connection. Merely because the Municipal Corporation is a party
to the proceedings initiated by the appellants with regard to
alterations made in the flat existing in the dilapidated building
will not mean that the Municipal Corporation cannot carry out an
audit of the structure as a whole, as mandated by law, to judge
the stability and safety. [Para 17][209-D-F]
 3. The building in question is in a ruinous condition and
needs to be repaired at the earliest for the simple reason that it
is unsafe for human habitation. Once the satisfaction recorded by
the Municipal Commissioner is in accordance with the due
procedure prescribed by law and is not vitiated by any perversity
or any illegality, there exists no ground to interfere with the
impugned notices. [ Paras 21 and 22][210-E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5825
of 2022.
From the Judgme

…