CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7147 OF 2007. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7147 of 2007. Date of Decision: September 3,2008. Jiwan Dhawan & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. O.P.Nagpal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl.AG, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan,Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sham Lal,Advocate, for respondent No.4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 7147 and 13942 of 2007 as both the writs involve common questions of facts. While the first writ petition is purported to have been filed in public interest, the second writ petition directly brings to fore a dispute between the tenant and his landlord. While the writ petition in public interest seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to demolish an old and dangerous building bearing No. B-4-1003 situated in Kucha Rura Mal, Kharadian Bazar, Ludhiana, in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7147 OF 2007. ::-2-:: the second writ petition, the petitioner-tenant seeks a Mandamus for reconstruction of the portion under his tenancy and to restore possession thereof in the same manner as it existed before 26th June, 2007. Besides, he has also sought damages as well as a direction to register a FIR against the officers of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, and quashing of the FIR No. 81 dated 18th August, 2007, under Sections 323/341/356/506/34 IPC, registered against him at Police Station, Division No.4, Ludhiana. [2]. The facts may be noticed briefly. [3]. A Four Storeyed Building bearing Municipal No. B-4-1003 in the busy locality of Kucha Rura Mal, Kharadian Bazar, Ludhiana [in short “the building”] was constructed some time in the year 1925. With the passage of time, the building has developed cracks and a part of it has allegedly fallen down; the iron/steel used in the roofs has turned rusty and the wooden batons in the roof have been infested with termite and have become rotten. [4]. Alleging that the Building is in ruins and is dangerous not only for its occupiers but to the passers-bye also, a notice under Section 273 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [in short “the Act”] was served upon the owner and occupiers of the building by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana on 17th August, 2001. The Superintending Engineer [Civil], Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana along with the Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD [B&R], Provincial Division No.3, Ludhiana, inspected the building and submitted their report dated 10th September, 2003 [Annexure P-3] observing that “most of the arches over the door/window openings have developed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7147 OF 2007. ::-3-:: cracks, T-irons used in roofs are rusted, wooden batons in roofs have become rotten/termite eaten, some part of the building has already fallen, plaster on walls is falling, roofs of some rooms are leaking and railings of projection at many places is damaged”. It appears that the building was also inspected by the Joint Commissioner [P] and the Executive Engineer, PWD [B&R], Punjab, Ludhiana, who too submitted a report to the same effect. Based on these reports, a show cause notice was issued to the owner/occupiers of the premises calling upon them to appear for personal hearing on 17th August, 2004 and to explain as to why the ruinous building be not demolished. [5]. One of the tenants, however, objected to the inspection report dated 10th September, 2003. Accordingly, a three members Committee comprising the Executive Engineer, PWD [B&R} and two Sub Divisional Engineers from the same department, was constituted, who again inspected the building and submitted their report dated 1st October, 2004 by concluding that “the building is very old structure and cracks have developed at many places in the walls and roofs. At some places roofs have collapsed partly. In view of the above facts, it is concluded that building is unsafe”. [6]. The aforementioned Inspection report led to issuance of a final notice to the owner/occupiers of the building on 29th October, 2004 [Annexure P-6] whereby the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation declared the building to be in a ruinous condition, unfit & unsafe and likely to fall down. The noticees were, therefore, called upon to vacate the building within thirty days or to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7147 OF 2007. ::-4-:: demolish the same within the time given, failing which the building was to be demolished by the corporation at the cost and risk of the owner/occupiers. Asserting that since the owner and occupiers of the building have failed to comply with the 'Final Notice' and the Corporation is not keen on taking any action in the matter, the petitioner, who claims himself to be a public spirited person and the President of “Citizens for Public Causes [Regd.]”, has filed the first writ petition. [7]. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondent No. 4 – tenant has filed his counter-affidavit with a preliminary objection that the writ petition is a proxy war at the behest of his landlord and in connivance with the officers of the Municipal Corporation. His case is that the portion occupied by him is not in such a dilapidated condition that it could be termed unfit for human habitation. The details of long drawn litigation between the parties have also been given. [8]. A short counter-affidavit, however, has been filed by the Superintending Engineer [Civil], Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, inter-alia, explaining that after issuance of the final notice dated 4th November, 2004, the demolition squad of the Corporation had gone at the site on 26th June, 2007 but “the occupiers of the building along with others did not allow the squad to demolish the building”. The District Administration, therefore, was requested to depute a Magistrate and sufficient number of police personnel so as to maintain law and order during the demolition drive. It has been further averred that subsequently a portion of the building which was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7147 OF 2007. ::-5-:: declared as ruinous and dangerous was demolished on 5th, 6th and 11th July, 2007 at the cost and risk of the owner. [9]. In view of the subsequent event, noticed above, namely, demolition of a part of the building which was declared ruinous and dangerous to the occupiers or the passers-bye, we are of the considered view that nothing survives in the first writ petition purported to be in 'public interest'. The same is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. [10]. Adverting to the second writ petition filed by one of the tenants in the disputed building, it is strenuously urged by his learned counsel that the building has been partially demolished to the extent it was occupied by him, whereas the portion which was in possession of the owner has been left intact. This contention, however, has been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the owner as well as the Corporation as according to them the remaining portion has also fallen down during the rainy season. As regards the petitioner's other claim, namely, to restore his possession after reconstruction of the portion and/or award of damages to him on account of the alleged losses suffered by him on various counts, we are of the considered view that such like disputed questions of fact can not be effectively gone into in these writ proceedings. We say so for the reason that a definite opinion in relation to such like issues can be formed only on appreciation of the evidence which the parties may like to bring on record. [11]. Consequently, we dismiss the second writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to institute a civil suit and/or seek CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7147 OF 2007. ::-6-:: redress before an appropriate forum, if otherwise permissible in law, on the same cause of action. No orders as to costs. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE September 03,2008. ( T.S.THAKUR ) dinesh CHIEF JUSTICE