JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to compel the Bombay Municipal Corporation to perform its statutory obligation, cast upon that Corporation, by certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act being Bombay Act No. III of 1888. 2. The first petitioner is a Premises Co-operative Society owning a structure known as "Ready- money Terrace" situated at 167, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli Naka, Bombay 400 018. Petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 5 are the allottee members of the Society. The premises owned by petitioner No. 2 are in the occupation of a branch of the Bank of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 5's premises were requisitioned in the year 1944/1945. While under requisition, the premises were being looked after by respondent No. 6. The premises of respondent No. 5 were allotted to the seventh respondent who was serving as a- Medical Practitioner under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). The Bank of Maharashtra on 13-12-1983 addressed Ex. B to the second petitioner complaining of leakage from the toilet/bathroom in the premises in the occupation of respondent No. 7. Ex.B made it clear that if leakage was not plugged, the structure faced the danger of a collapse. Petitioners engaged an Architect to carry out an inspection and give an opinion. The said Architect submitted a report which is at Ex.C. In this report it was pointed out that the leakage was from an unauthorised bathroom in the premises in the occupation of respondent No. 7. The leakage from the bathroom was said to be causing considerable damage to the building Petitioners addressed complaints to several authorities including the BMC's Officers being respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The BMC instead of taking action against the erring respondent No. 7 gave a notice under section 381 of the Act to petitioner No. 1. The notice was that it had to plug the leakage. Petitioners made a detailed representation which is at Ex. H pointing out that action should have been taken against respondent No. 7 and those who had allowed her to construct and/or use an unauthorised convenience. The BMC at one stage took the attitude that the bathroom complained of was not of recent origin and therefore no action was warranted. This unusual tenderness shown by the BMC has compelled the petitioners to seek the assistance of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The BMC at one stage took the attitude that the bathroom complained of was not of recent origin and therefore no action was warranted. This unusual tenderness shown by the BMC has compelled the petitioners to seek the assistance of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The petition is resisted by respondents 1 to 4 i.e. the BMC and its Officers and respondent No. 5, the member of the Society. The stand taken by the member is that it has done nothing illegal. The bathroom or water closet complained of has been in existence since long. A pointer to the long existence of the bathroom is the fact that the premises in which it is located is separate and without the facility of the bathroom or W.C., the occupants of the premises could not have had any toilet for use. In any case, if respondent No. 7 had carried out any illegal work respondent No. 5 was not responsible therefor. So far as the BMC is concerned, it concedes that though the bathroom is not of recent origin the additional toilet put up therein could cause certain leakage problems to the premises in the occupation of the Bank of Maharashtra. Steps to abate the nuisance had been suggested. The BMC had been unnecessarily dragged into what was a private dispute. Recourse to the writ jurisdiction was unwarranted and the petition deserved to be dismissed with costs. 4. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Mane representing the petitioners states the obvious when he says that the BMC has failed to discharge the statutory obligation cast upon it. He has referred to sections 246-A, 250, 251- A and 257 of the Act in support of his submissions. To be brief, these provisions make it incumbent upon the BMC to prevent the erection of a privy or water closet directly over any room or part of building other than another privy, water closet etc. Where this prohibition has been contravened, section 257(1 )(i) enjoins upon the BMC to direct a closure or removal of the offending water closet or privy etc. Here, the BMC's return shows that the water closet is unsanctioned and that it contravenes the law. The BMC's inaction is explained as being actuated by the fact of the closet/bathroom being an old one. Here, the BMC's return shows that the water closet is unsanctioned and that it contravenes the law. The BMC's inaction is explained as being actuated by the fact of the closet/bathroom being an old one. But the fact of closet being an old one, cannot justify its continuance if it leads to a nuisance. That nuisance is occasioned is admitted by the BMC, in its return quite apart from the fact that the Bank of Maharashtra would not have otherwise made a complaint thereof to the second petitioner. Both the sets of contesting respondents have laid much stress upon the bathroom being of long standing. But that would not make it something worth being tolerated. Counsel for the BMC relies upon the judgment delivered on 10-8-1983 in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1980 by a Single Judge of this Court. In the decision relied upon the petitioners wanted the BMC to take steps to demolish unauthorised structures not giving rise to a nuisance. That is why the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition with costs holding that it was not part of the statutory obligation of the Corporation to evict trespassers from premises belonging to private persons. But that is not the position in the instant case. Here, a water closet/bathroom causing nuisance is being tolerated though the said bathroom has been erected in clear violation of section 251 of the Act. It was said that the Corporation has done what it could. It is not possible to agree with this submission. What the Corporation has done is an illustration of foot-dragging and the obvious reason is that respondent No. 7 was in a position to overawe the BMC or its Officers. Failure to discharge a statutory obligation can be corrected by a writ and there is no dearth of authorities to establish this point. Respondent No. 5 contends that it should not be precluded from approaching the BMC to regularise the closet/ bathroom, subject of course to its taking steps to abate the leakage. What respondent No. 5 should do is not of any relevance in this petition. Here, the question is whether respondents Nos. 1 to 4 should be allowed to evade performance of their statutory obligation on the flimsy pretexts put forth in their return or for that matter of respondent No. 5. The obvious answer is a ringing negative. What respondent No. 5 should do is not of any relevance in this petition. Here, the question is whether respondents Nos. 1 to 4 should be allowed to evade performance of their statutory obligation on the flimsy pretexts put forth in their return or for that matter of respondent No. 5. The obvious answer is a ringing negative. The petition has to be allowed and hence the order. ORDER The BMC is directed to take immediate steps to stop the use of the privy/ bathroom/water closet figuring in the petition. Rule in these terms made absolute with parties being left to bear their own costs. Request for stay of the judgment by respondent No 5 is hereby rejected. Rule made absolute. -----