JUDGMENT Shabihul Hasnain and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, JJ. Heard Sri Anil K. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Yatindra Pathak, learned counsel for Lucknow Nagar Nigam. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6.6.2015 whereby, one Sri Mohd.Shoeb Khan and Mohd. Saleem Khan, respondent nos. 6 & 7 respectively, were required to get part of a building/house, in which, as alleged by the petitioner, he is living as a tenant, made safe after repair etc. The said order dated 6.6.2015 further directs the respondent nos. 6 & 7 to erect fencing and to construct a platform with railing before the repair work of the house is undertaken. 3. On the basis of instructions, learned counsel representing Lucknow Nagar Nigam has stated that on the application moved by respondent nos. 6 & 7, the Additional City Magistrate (3rd), Lucknow, passed an order dated 20.5.2015 to conduct an inquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with law. It has further been stated by him that pursuant to the said order dated 20.5.2015, the house in question was inspected and on inspection it was found that a portion of the house is in a dilapidated condition which requires repairs. Learned counsel representing Lucknow Nagar Nigam has further submitted that accordingly, the order/notice dated 6.6.2015 has been issued by the authority concerned under Section 331 of the U.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, so as to avoid any untoward incident in case of an earthquake. 4. Section 331 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, casts duty on the municipal authorities that in case any structure or anything appended to or projected from such structure is found to be in a ruinous condition or is likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or even passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, then by written notice, the owner or occupier of such structure may be required to pull down, secure, remove or repair, such structure or thing to prevent all causes of danger therefrom. 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 331 also empowers the municipal authorities to require the owner or occupier either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure, remove or repair the said structure or thing to setup a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other persons. 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 331 also empowers the municipal authorities to require the owner or occupier either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure, remove or repair the said structure or thing to setup a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other persons. Section 331 (1) and (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act are quoted herein below: - "Section 331. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall.--(1) If it shall lat any time appear to the [Municipal Commissioner] that any structure (including under this expression any building, wall, parapet, pavement, floor steps, railing, door or window frames or shutters or roof, or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from or resting on, any building, wall, parapet or other structure) is in a ruinous condition or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the [Municipal Commissioner] may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure, remove or repair, such structure or thing or do one or more of such things and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. (2) The [Municipal Commissioner] may also, if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure, remove or repair the said structure or thing, to setup a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same and the [Municipal Commissioner] shall think the same desirable, to serve as a footway for passengers outside of such hoard of fence." 6. From the perusal of the impugned order/notice dated 6.6.2015, it is apparent that by the said notice, respondent nos. 6 & 7 have only been required to secure the structure/house, which has been found during the inspection to be in a dilapidated condition and which requires repair work. The notice dated 6.6.2015 further directs the respondent nos. 6 & 7 to provide sufficient protection to the passers-by by putting a fence and constructing a platform with railing. 7. 6 & 7 have only been required to secure the structure/house, which has been found during the inspection to be in a dilapidated condition and which requires repair work. The notice dated 6.6.2015 further directs the respondent nos. 6 & 7 to provide sufficient protection to the passers-by by putting a fence and constructing a platform with railing. 7. The provisions contained in Section 331 of the aforesaid Act are meant for securing the safety of general public and even the occupier of the building, which is not found to be safe. The order/notice dated 6.6.2015 is based on an inspection of structure/house in question and hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the said order. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the order/notice dated 6.6.2015 is in fact a device to defeat the two orders of injunction, which have been granted by the Civil Court on two separate suits filed by the petitioner, one against the respondent nos. 4 & 5 and other against respondent nos. 6 & 7. 9. The injunction orders passed by the learned civil court is binding between the parties, however, the provisions contained in Section 331 of the aforesaid Act, as observed above, has been enacted as a measure to secure the safety not only to the occupier but of the passers-by as well. The impugned order/notice dated 6.6.2015 does not require any eviction of the petitioner, who is said to be a tenant of the house in question, presently owned by respondent nos. 6 & 7. 10. We cannot appreciate as to how, in case repair work is undertaken and till the repair work is undertaken for securing the house in question, if the platform with railing is constructed and fencing is erected, the injunction orders are going to be violated ? 11. Moreover, violation of the injunction orders passed by the Civil Court can be taken care of by the Court itself, which has granted the interim injunctions and for this reason, writ petition in this matter would not be maintainable. 12. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner has also attempted to press into the service the provisions of Act 13 of 1972. The aforesaid enactment primarily governs the relationship between tenant and landlord and the eviction, enhancement of rent etc. The provisions contained therein regarding the dilapidated condition and the permission etc. 12. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner has also attempted to press into the service the provisions of Act 13 of 1972. The aforesaid enactment primarily governs the relationship between tenant and landlord and the eviction, enhancement of rent etc. The provisions contained therein regarding the dilapidated condition and the permission etc. required by the landlord or tenant for undertaking the repair works cannot be said to have overriding effect on Section 331 of the U.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1959. The purpose of the related provisions in the Act 13 of 1972 are entirely different than the purpose for which Section 331 of the U.P.Municipal Corporation Act has been enacted by the legislature. We have already observed that Section 331 of the U.P.Municipal Corporation Act, is basically meant for securing the safety of the occupant of such house which is in a dilapidated condition and also that of the passers-by in general public-interest 13. For the reasons disclosed herein above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.