: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.186 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.224 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1788 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.2135 OF 2007 M/s.Sharaddha Enterprises ....Appellant V/s. Laxmi Niwas Welfare Association & Anr. ....Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.187 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.225 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2403 OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.2307 OF 2007 M/s.Sharaddha Enterprises ....Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corpn.of Gr.Bombay & Ors.....Respondents Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.D.R. Shah Appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for the Respondent - B.M.C. Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Respondent Nos.2 to 9. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 2ND MAY, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. This matter is important from the point of : 2 : view of urgency and the personal safety of the occupants of a building "Laxmi Niwas". Respondent No.1 had passed an order dated 29.1.2007 observing that the premises were in extreme dangerous condition and required to be pulled down after vacating the occupants/tenants and that the occupiers had been informed to vacate the premises. The enclosure to the letter relying upon the reports of the Engineer observed that the structure was unstable and had been found to be in extreme dangerous condition and need to be vacated immediately. 3. This order was challenged by some of the occupants including Respondent Nos.2 to 9 by filing B.C.C.Suit No.2135 of 2007. By an ad-interim order dated 16.5.2007, the Bombay City Civil Court passed the following order :- "3. The Plffs. To make appln. to the concerned Department of the Corpn. Independently to consider their request to carry out repairs to the respective tenements of the plffs.Members. 4. The concerned Dept. of the corpn. to consider the said appln.of the plffs. for repairs within a week from the date of receipt of the appln. and keeping in mind the condition of the premises in the bldg. which require minor repairs to withstand the monsoon and the plffs. after the said appln. is considered to proceed with the repairs. : 3 : 5. In the meantime plffs. And the deft.No.1 to endeavour to settle the matter between themselves in so far as the premises of the members of the plffs. in the suit bldg. are concerned." 4. Pursuant to the said order, Respondent No.1 by a communication dated 15.6.2007 directed as under:- "Gentleman, . Please refer your application for repair permission application dated 18.5.07. . Vide report dated 19th Dec.2006 submitted by Consultant of S.P. College of Engineering appointed by M.C.G.M., the Building under reference falls in C-1 category i.e. "Extremely dangerous condition" and needs to be vacated immediately and accordingly the eviction letters were issued by this Office to all the occupants. However, vide Hon’ble Court’s order dated 16.5.07 in L.C.Suit (Stamp) No.1949 of 07, the tenantable repairs as mentioned herein under are permitted ;" 5. It is this communication which is impugned in the suit in which the impugned order has been passed. Earlier an ad-interim order was passed rejecting the present Appellant’s application for ad-interim order staying the operation of the communication dated 16.5.2007. This ad-interim order was challenged by the Appellant in Appeal from Order No.535 of 2007. : 4 : Several orders were passed inter-alia inviting the reports of the Structural Engineer. Thereafter the Bombay City Civil Court was directed to hear the Notice of Motion itself. The learned Judge heard the Notice of Motion and passed the order impugned in the present Appeal from Order rejecting the Appellant’s Notice of Motion. 6. It is indeed difficult for the Court at this stage to consider the rival contentions regarding the structural stability of a building. It is difficult for the Court to sit in appeal over the report of the concerned authorities namely Respondent No.1 in this regard. 7. Mrs.Joglekar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 fairly stated that the communication dated 15.6.2007 proceeded on the incorrect basis that the City Civil Court had by the said order dated 16.5.2007 directed Respondent No.1 to grant the permission. I agree. The order dated 16.5.2007 did not direct Respondent No.1 to grant any permission. Indeed the learned Judge could not have done so. This is a matter for Respondent No.1 to decide. Respondent No.1 was merely directed to consider the tenants’ application. Respondent No.1 : 5 : was expected therefore to pass such order as it deemed fit. 8. It is a question today of the safety of the occupants of the building. It is clarified that Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to take such action as it deems fit in accordance with law in respect of the suit structure. The decision shall be taken on its own merits. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to consider if it so thinks fit the reports of the Structural Engineers filed in this Court. It is clarified that this Court has not directed Respondent No.1 to either grant or refuse any permission. 9. It is desirable in the interest and safety of all concerned that this decision be taken immediately. There has already been a considerable delay. 10. The concerned authorities of Respondent No.1 shall take a decision on the application made by the tenants pursuant to the order dated 16.5.2007 on or before 16.5.2008. The decision shall be communicated to the advocates of the parties forthwith. Mr.Saraogi on taking instructions from his clients states that they continue to occupy the premises entirely at their risk and consequences. The mere fact that the : 6 : occupants desire to occupy the premises at their risk does not entitle me to pass any orders which may jeopardise their safety. . Both the Appeals from order are accordingly disposed of.