JUDGMENT : TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. 1. Formally, two appeals have been preferred against an order dated 24th March, 2015 passed upon analogous hearing of two writ applications being W.P. No.39 of 2012 and W.P. No.487 of 2014 and as common questions of law and facts are involved, both the said appeals are taken up for analogous hearing. 2. The short point which arises for consideration in the present appeals is as to whether in terms of the provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the KMC Act) and the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the KMC Rules), the tenants and occupants of a building are required to be heard by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the KMC) authorities while considering an application for re-erection of the said building submitted by the owner and prior to grant of formal sanction of the building plan. 3. The matter has a chequered history. The writ petitioner/appellant herein is the owner of the land at premises nos. 19A and 20, Strand Road, Calcutta-700001, at premises no. 23A Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-700001 and at premises nos. 25 and 27, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-700001 and of the buildings and structures thereupon. All the nine premises are now amalgamated and renumbered as 25, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta-700001 (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). The said buildings are occupied by various tenants and occupants. Twice a fire broke out at the said premises on 24th May, 1980 and 20th December, 2006. In consideration of the ruinous state of some of the buildings, notices under Section 411 of the KMC Act were issued on 1st September, 2011 and 5th November, 2011. By the said notices the appellant was asked to secure and repair the building, if possible and also to demolish the dilapidated and damaged portions mentioned in the said notices. Alleging that the notices are vague, the appellant challenged the same by a writ petition being W.P. No.39 of 2012. With the passage of time the condition of the buildings further deteriorated. The appellant approached the KMC authorities by representations dated 12th December, 2011, 8th August, 2013, 14th August, 2013, 25th March, 2014 and 2nd May, 2014 with a prayer to take appropriate steps for demolition of buildings in terms of Section 411 of the KMC Act. With the passage of time the condition of the buildings further deteriorated. The appellant approached the KMC authorities by representations dated 12th December, 2011, 8th August, 2013, 14th August, 2013, 25th March, 2014 and 2nd May, 2014 with a prayer to take appropriate steps for demolition of buildings in terms of Section 411 of the KMC Act. As no steps were taken, the appellant preferred a further writ petition being W.P. No.487 of 2014. Both the writ petitions were thereafter heard and by the order impugned in the present appeal, the learned Single Judge directed the KMC authorities to dispose of the pending applications for amalgamation of the nine premises in question. By the said order it was also observed that "in the event approval of the plan is made by the Corporation, it will not be formally sanctioned unless and until the learned counsel appearing today are heard by this Court with regard to the plan". Pursuant to the said order and upon considering the pending applications, the KMC authorities passed an order of amalgamation of the said premises on 9th April, 2015. Thereafter, on 15th June, 2015 the appellant preferred the instant appeal. To resolve the dispute, this Court by an order dated 16th February, 2016 directed the appellant to furnish the plan along with a statement giving details where it proposed to relocate each of the tenants, who are in occupation, including the details of measurement of the area it proposed to allot. Pursuant to the said order a rehabilitation proposal was filed and by an order dated 16th August, 2016 the parties were given liberty to put their objections by way of an exception to the proposed plan. By the said order it was also observed that the appellant would be cautious enough to ensure that no occupant and tenant is evicted without due process of law but with a caveat that the occupants would face the consequence "if anything happens to the building on its own". On 22nd August, 2016, some of the tenants mentioned the matter alleging that the KMC authorities have started demolishing the buildings forcibly and as such this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for KMC to inform the officer of the Municipal Corporation both telephonic and otherwise to stop the demolition work of the premises. On 22nd August, 2016, some of the tenants mentioned the matter alleging that the KMC authorities have started demolishing the buildings forcibly and as such this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for KMC to inform the officer of the Municipal Corporation both telephonic and otherwise to stop the demolition work of the premises. It was also directed that the police authorities will not act contrary to the order passed on 16th August, 2016. The said interim order has been extended from time to time. 4. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no mandatory requirement under the KMC Act and the KMC Rules to hear the tenants prior to grant of any permission towards re erection of the building and sanction of the building plan. No such obligation is cast upon the KMC authorities. The direction issued by the learned Judge upon the KMC authorities not to formally sanction the plan till all the appearing parties are heard despite approval of the plan, is bereft of any reasons. Such embargo as imposed would unnecessarily delay the development and rehabilitation of the tenants and in the midst thereof the buildings may collapse. 5. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Rules 4 and 142 of the KMC Rules, Mr. Mitra submits that no permission towards re-erection of a building and sanction of a building plan can be obtained by the appellant without rehabilitating the tenants and occupants in the existing buildings. Relaxation of the building rules towards re-erection and construction of buildings upon demolition of the existing buildings, as required by the appellant, also cannot be obtained without the prior consent of the tenants and occupants of the existing buildings. 6. He further submits that the scope of the appeal is very limited and no appeal has been preferred against the impugned order by the respondents and no cross-objection in connection with the present appeal has also been filed. The demolition of the buildings in the said premises is not the subject matter of the appeal and as such the respondents could not have sought for any prayer restraining the KMC authorities from demolishing the dilapidated and dangerous buildings. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Banarsi & Ors. v. Ram Phal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 7. Mr. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Banarsi & Ors. v. Ram Phal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 7. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing for KMC submits that 3 and 7 Commercial Buildings are in a ruinous state and the same may collapse at any time. Due to the subsisting interim order, the KMC authorities have been prevented from demolishing the same. Even in the event the buildings are demolished the tenancy rights would not be affected and as such the tenants would not be prejudiced in any manner in the event of demolition of the buildings which are in a dilapidated condition. The interim order obtained by the tenants and occupants is beyond the scope of the appeal. 8. Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 submits that the said respondent is a tenant in respect of the ground floor of building at premises no.19, Strand Road, Kolkata, presently 7, Commercial Building. In spite of the subsisting interim order passed in the present appeal on 16th August, 2016, the KMC authorities illegally and forcibly demolished a portion of the building including the tenanted portion of the respondent no. 11. Such incident was reported to the Hare Street Police Station on 21st August, 2016 but in vain. 9. Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 22, 75, 76, 78, 99 and 116 submits that the said respondents are tenants in five buildings in the said premises. The appellant illegally entered into an agreement with one Mahendra Jalan as a developer. On 20th August, 2016 a large contingent of police force cordoned off the front portion of 7, Commercial Building and physically assaulted the tenants and forced them out of the premises and thereafter the KMC authorities forcibly demolished parts of the said buildings and as such the said respondents were constrained to approach this Court. 10. Mr. K. K. Moitra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 submits that without complying with the subsisting interim order, the KMC authorities illegally issued a notice under Section 411 and started demolishing the 3 & 7, Commercial Building on and from the evening of the 19th August, 2016 without giving any scope to the tenants to remove their documents and valuables. Such forcible dispossession and demolition have caused extreme prejudice to the said respondents. Without securing the rights of the respondents the buildings cannot be demolished, submitted the learned counsel. 11. Mr. Mitra, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no.174 submits that the right of the respondents to a pre-decisional hearing prior to sanction of the building plan stands secured by the earlier orders passed in the writ petitions and in the absence of any challenge against the said orders, the respondents cannot be deprived of such right. 12. Ms. Piyali Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.12 submits that no steps have been taken by the KMC authorities to conduct a soil test, as mandatorily required prior to commencement of demolition proceedings. 13. Mr. Shambhunath Roy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.36 submits that several suits pertaining to 2 and 7, Commercial Building are pending and that the appellant is a lessee in respect of the properties in question and the lease granted in favour of the appellant has already expired and it has challenged the notice of eviction issued by the Kolkata Port Trust authorities by filing writ petitions which are still pending. 14. Mr. Anirban Roy, learned counsel submits that he is appearing for some of the tenants who have preferred an application for addition of party. He submits that the applicants are not occupying the buildings which are dilapidated but as all the premises have been amalgamated and as the appellant has approached the KMC authorities for demolition of all the buildings in the amalgamated premises, the applicants have a right to be heard prior to sanction of the building plan. 15. Mr. Utpal Majumder, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in GA 1889 of 2015 submits that he is a member of the Association of the tenants which has entered into an agreement with the appellant as regards rehabilitation but due to pendency of the appeal the sanction of the building plan has been unnecessarily delayed and as a consequence thereof his rehabilitation is in the doldrums. 16. Mr. Mitra, in reply, submits that the respondent no.36 has sought to mislead the Court inasmuch as the writ petitions stated to have been filed by the appellant are relating to different properties. He submits that the initial proposal for sanction of plan had already been denied to be accepted by KMC. 16. Mr. Mitra, in reply, submits that the respondent no.36 has sought to mislead the Court inasmuch as the writ petitions stated to have been filed by the appellant are relating to different properties. He submits that the initial proposal for sanction of plan had already been denied to be accepted by KMC. The appellant is yet to submit a fresh proforma application in terms of Rule 4. The appellant will also apply to avail the necessary relaxation as provided under Rule 142. 17. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In the building plan to be submitted by the appellant for sanction, the appellant would have to indicate the areas in which the tenants would be rehabilitated and the permission of KMC for construction in a phased manner would have to be sought by the appellant, as would be necessary for shifting of the tenants and for their rehabilitation in the building to be constructed as per the sanctioned building plan. 18. Chapter XXII of the KMC Act details the procedure to be adopted to obtain a sanction plan. Section 393 provides that every person who intends to erect a building shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing to the Municipal Commission in such form together with such fees as may be prescribed. Rule 4 of the KMC Rules provides that a person who intends to erect a new building on any site whether previously built upon or not or to re-erect or to make addition to or alteration of any building is required to apply for sanction by giving notice in writing to the Municipal Commission. Rule 4(2) provides that such notice shall be in the form as specified in Schedule I. A perusal of Schedule I would reveal that for erection or alteration of a building the person has to answer the queries, inter alia, as to whether the premises is tenanted. Rule 142 details the relaxation which would be available for construction of a building in place and stead of existing buildings after demolition. Rule 142 (3) specifically provides that every application for availing relaxation of building rules has to be accompanied with documentary evidence of the tenants of the existing building signifying their plans to the demolition thereof. 19. Rule 142 details the relaxation which would be available for construction of a building in place and stead of existing buildings after demolition. Rule 142 (3) specifically provides that every application for availing relaxation of building rules has to be accompanied with documentary evidence of the tenants of the existing building signifying their plans to the demolition thereof. 19. From the above statutory provisions it is explicit that grant of any pre-decisional hearing to the tenants pertaining to the issue of sanction of a building plan is not a mandatory statutory requirement. As the present appeal does not involve any issue of demolition, the interim directions cannot subsist any further. 20. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned direction in the order dated 24th March, 2015 that "in the event approval of the plan is made by the Corporation, it will not be formally sanctioned unless and until the learned counsel appearing today are heard by this Court with regard to the plan", is set aside. 21. However, we make it clear that no steps should be taken by KMC towards demolition of the buildings through issuance of notices under Sections 411 and 412 of the KMC Act without giving at least clear seven working days' notice to the respondents to enable them to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and in accordance with law. 22. With the above observations and directions the appeal and the connected applications are disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J. - I Agree. Appeal and connected applications are disposed of.