JUDGMENT 1. This matter impugns a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. 2. The petitioners before us are an Association of Tenants. 3. It is claimed that, the third respondent is holding itself to be the owner of the property as also the landlord/developer. The petitioners are relying upon an order dated 23.6.2014 in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 under which the Municipal Corporation has been directed by this Court to lay down certain policies and follow a guideline so that old and dilapidated structures are either promptly repaired or rendered unfit for habitation or pulled down. 4. That is in furtherance of the mandate of Section 353B of the MMC Act which benchmarked, buildings of more than 30 years old in the city of Mumbai for compulsory audit. The compulsory structural audit is not necessarily to be carried out by the owner/landlord but equally by the occupants in the event, the owner/landlord is not ready and willing to do so. This is for public safety. Ultimately, the rights in a immovable property are secondary to public safety and public interest. Public safety demands that old and dilapidated structures in Mumbai are brought down or demolished as so as to protect the life of not only those residing therein but their neighbourhood and passersby. The structure in question is already identified as old and dilapidated. On 30th July, 2009 the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay addressed to one, M/s. Hilton Realtors, a communication which reads as under : ". WHEREAS it appear to me that the certain structure, to which, a portion of the building of premises known as Kutbi Manzil and Nagarwala Bldg. Opp. Cigarette Factory, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 099 of which you are the owner/developer of building which is in ruinous condition likely to fall and dangerous to any person occupying resorting to, or passing by the same, I hereby require you, under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act to carry out following repair under the strict supervision licensed Structural Engineer. 1)To provide the adequate no. of props below beams, slabs, chajjas & wherever necessary while carrying out the repair works. 2) To carry out rust removal treatment for all exposed and corroded reinforcement of R.C.C. member (i.e. beams, coloumns, slabs, chajjas etc.) at all floors, terrace, water tank etc. 1)To provide the adequate no. of props below beams, slabs, chajjas & wherever necessary while carrying out the repair works. 2) To carry out rust removal treatment for all exposed and corroded reinforcement of R.C.C. member (i.e. beams, coloumns, slabs, chajjas etc.) at all floors, terrace, water tank etc. 3) To carry out guniting to the R.C.C. Chajjas, coloumns,ceiling of slab & other R.C.C. members wherever necessary. 4). To remove all external plaster and provide new plaster after carrying out guniting to all RCC members which are either cracked or have lost their concrete cover and reinforcement is found exposed. 5). To remove rank vegetation growth on external walls. 6) To replaster the brick masonry walls by removing old cracked plaster wherever necessary. 7) To do internal plaster wherever necessary. 8) To provide proper waterproofing treatment to terrace slab. 9) To replace all broken and leaking down take waste water pipes, fresh water pipe lines of the building with new one. 10) Any other repair and strengthening work as suggested by licensed structural Engineer. 11) All the above repair work to be carried out under the supervision of licensed architect or structural consultant. And to prevent all cause of danger there from, I further hereby require you under the aforesaid section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, secure the said structure to set up a proper and sufficient board or fence for the protection of passers by and other persons. I give you notice that if within 30 days from the service or receipt hereof of this requisition be not complied with you will render yourself liable to prosecution under Section 475-A of the said Act and I may thereafter, pursuant to the provisions of section 489 of the said Act take or such measures or cause such work to be executed or such thing requirement to be done as mentioned in the Notice under Section 354 of the M.M.C. Act as shall in my opinion by necessary for giving due effect to this requisition and you will be liable for the expense thereof which will be recovered from you in the manner provided by section 491 of the said Act before the appropriate forum/court of law. No portion of the structures within the regular line of the street may be reconstructed nor may anything within the scope of section 342 of the said Municipal Corporation Act. No portion of the structures within the regular line of the street may be reconstructed nor may anything within the scope of section 342 of the said Municipal Corporation Act. Other than the work which you are expressly required by this Notice to do, be made or done without previously giving notice thereof as required by section 342 aforesaid." 5. Now, M/s. Hilton Realtors claims to be the earlier owner. However, we are not concerned with this for the simple reason that one, Ganesh Singh residing in the building had forewarned the Municipal Corporation about the condition of the building. No compliance is made with the aforereferred communication of the MMC is the complaint of this person. 6. Finding no response to its letter of 30th July 2009, the Municipal Corporation has invoked Section 354 and addressed a notice, copy of which is at page-44 of the paper-book. That notice is issued a good one year and four months after the prior notice and to be precise on 30.11.2010. The notice under Section 354 reads as under : "Reference is requested for this office notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act No. ACKE/BF/354/577/dated 30 th July, 2009 WHEREAS it appears to me that the certain structure to which a portion of the building or premises known as Kutbi Manzil Building, Opp. Cigarette Factory, Sahar Road, Andheri (East) of which you are the owner/occupier of building which is in a ruinous condition likely to fall and dangerous to any person occupying resorting to or passing by the same. I hereby require you under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and as Executive Engineer K/East order dated 25.11.2010 and Assistant Commissioner, K/East Ward Order dated 28.11.2010 to pull down the dangerous building comprising of ground plus two floors situated at the above mentioned address, through a registered approved contractor under the strict supervision of authorised Executive Engineer and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. Important Notes : 1. The rooms any, occupied shall be vacated immediately after making proper alternate accommodation arrangement for the existing occupants. Making alternate accommodation arrangements for the existing occupants shall be solely the owner''s responsibility. 2. The adequate propping, scaffolding and other safety measures shall be taken while executing the pulling down work. 3. Important Notes : 1. The rooms any, occupied shall be vacated immediately after making proper alternate accommodation arrangement for the existing occupants. Making alternate accommodation arrangements for the existing occupants shall be solely the owner''s responsibility. 2. The adequate propping, scaffolding and other safety measures shall be taken while executing the pulling down work. 3. Care should be taken that no debris/or any other R.C.C. members/walls of the building, to fall on the adjacent chawls/structures occupies by various occupants. 4. Damages, if any caused to the property or loss/injuries to the lives while executing the pulling down work, the responsibility of the same shall be exclusively to be borne by our and it will be at your risk and cost. 5. The status of tenancy rights of the tenants of the notice building will not change due to issue of this notice and M.C.G.M. will not be a party to any litigation in this manner. 6. This notice is issued without prejudice to the right of the M.C.G.M. and any court cases pending against Owner/Occupant. 7. This notice is not applicable to repair work, which will amount to reconstruction of entire or part of the existing structure. 8. This notice is issued without prejudice/without verification of the approved plan or status of the structure. In case of any work attracting provisions of Section 337 of the M.M.C. Act, separate proposal shall be submitted to Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) Western Suburbs H & K/East Ward. 9. The purpose of issuing this notice is primarily to avoid any mishap/accidents on account of probable collapse of the building due to dilapidated condition of the building/or the ensuing monsoon. The notice work will be carried out under the supervision of Licensed Structural Engineer/Architect. 10. The starting date and completion date of the notice work shall be communicated to the undersigned in writing. 11. The notice is issued without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties/tenants and subject orders in Suits filed in Court in respect of any portion of the notice building. 12. Not withstanding anything contained in this notice, the present status of the structure shall remain unchanged. And to prevent all cause of danger thereof, I further hereby require you under the aforesaid section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. 12. Not withstanding anything contained in this notice, the present status of the structure shall remain unchanged. And to prevent all cause of danger thereof, I further hereby require you under the aforesaid section of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Forthwith before processing to pull down and secure said structure to set up a proper and sufficient board or fence for the protection of passer-by and on persons. I give you Notice that if within 45 days from the service or receipt here or this requisition not complied with you will render yourself liable to prosecution under Section 475-a of the said and I may thereafter pursuant to the provisions of Section 489 of the said Act take measures cause such work to be executed on such thing requirements to be done as mentioned in the Notice under section 354 of MMC. Act as shall in my opinion be necessary for giving due effect to the requisition and you will be liable for the expenses thereof which will be recovered from from you in the manner provided by section 491 of the said Act before appropriate forum / court of law. No portion of the structure within the scope of section 342 of the said Municipal Corporation Act other that the work which you are required by this notice to do made or do without previously giving notice thereof as required by section 342 aforesaid." 7. The only response to this is that the petitioners have got the building inspected through a qualified Structural Engineer M/s. Yash Techno-Legal Consultants. The consultants report is relied upon to urge that, should the same be accepted, the structure need not be pulled down but would require repairs and strengthening. The report is dated 6th February, 2012. 8. Mr. Mishra, in support of this petition would submit that, there is also a report obtained on 17th September, 2010 from VJTI by the erstwhile landlord/owner. It is opined by the VJTI as well that the building which has completed more than 45 years needs to be classified as C-1 and C-2. 9. Mr. Mishra expects this Court to pass an order allowing the tenants to carry out the repairs. His submission is that, this petition was listed suddenly and the petitioners are taken by surprise. 10. 9. Mr. Mishra expects this Court to pass an order allowing the tenants to carry out the repairs. His submission is that, this petition was listed suddenly and the petitioners are taken by surprise. 10. We must at once clarify that, we do not derive any pleasure in placing such matters on our supplementary board and calling upon the parties to work them out expeditiously. 11. We have noticed that the Municipal Corporation is facing practical difficulty in the sense, it has identified number of structures and buildings in the city and suburban Mumbai as dangerous. They are in ruinous state or unfit for human habitation. These are old structures and therefore they have become dilapidated. They are definitely more than 30 years old. When the Municipal Corporation takes action promptly, such writ petitions are moved and this Court is persuaded to pass an interim order by which the occupants claim that they can reside in these structures at their own risk and cost and face the consequences. They give an Undertaking to this Court that, they will not hold anybody responsible. 12. It is unfortunate that, the petitions are thereafter not taken up for admission for years together. In the meanwhile in the city of Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and the adjoining district of Thane, buildings covered by status-quo order have either been pulled down or substantially collapsed. In some cases, the skeleton structure is existing at site. The status-quo orders present enormous difficulty for the authorities in not only removing the structures but sometimes the debris from the site. Our attention was invited to several such instances in the city of Mumbai. One of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) presiding over this Bench since 3 rd June, 2019 is aware of several applications made by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Thane Municipal Corporation to forthwith vacate the orders in the nature of status-quo or interim orders staying the implementation and enforcement of the notices traceable to provisions akin to Section 354 of the MMC Act, 1888. It was brought to our notice that, if such matters keep on lingering, the threat to the life and property of the residents of Mumbai and Mumbai suburban would be increasing day by day. It was brought to our notice that, if such matters keep on lingering, the threat to the life and property of the residents of Mumbai and Mumbai suburban would be increasing day by day. In the event, in the present monsoon, such structures collapse, legal consequences of the same will have to be faced by the Municipal Corporation and thereafter public funds are going to be wasted. 13. This is one such matter and the orders passed in this petition dated 11.10.2017, 3.11.2017 and 15.11.2017 have been passed when the notice was about to be implemented. The petitioner approached this Court apprehending disconnection of electricity and water supply. This Court was persuaded to pass an interim order and on 15.12.2017 the following order came to be passed : "1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that this petition has been filed for the benefit of 18 members of the petitioner. 2 We direct the petitioner to annex a list of those 18 members by amending the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to amend for incorporating a challenge to the notice mentioned in prayer clause (b). These amendments shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date on which this order is uploaded. If amendment is not carried within stipulated period,the petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. 3 Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 31st January 2018. Notice to indicate that an endeavour shall be made to decide the petition finally at the stage of admission. In addition to service of notice through Court, the Advocate for the petitioner shall serve a private notice to the respondent Nos.2 and 3. If proper affidavit of service is not filed one week before the returnable date, the petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. 4 By way of ad-interim relief, we direct that till the next date, action of demolition shall not be taken in respect of the subject building on the basis of the notice mentioned in the prayer clause (b) subject to condition of all 18 members of the petitioner filing undertakings in this Court stating that they shall continue to occupy the premises in their respective possession at their own risk. Undertakings to further state that in the event the subject building or any part thereof collapses, they will be solely liable for loss/damage which may be caused to third parties. If such undertakings are not filed within a period of three weeks from today,ad-interim relief shall stand vacated without further reference to the Court." 14. This order was passed in the fond hope that the parties will come together to find a solution so that the structure does not collapse. 15. Far from taking any concrete steps, the parties are still not coming together and the request is to grant further time. 16. We do not see think that we should grant any adjournment. Firstly, a notice under Section 354 is issued after the necessary satisfaction is reached in terms thereof. Secondly, in this case, the satisfaction has been reached and that is discernible from a prior communication of 30.07.2009. We have noted the contents of the notice issued to the petitioners for the simple reason that, in order to successfully attack such notices, the parties have to demonstrate and prove that the subjective satisfaction or opinion of the Municipal Commissioner is vitiated by perversity and malafides. The parameters enabling us to interfere in writ jurisdiction are too well settled. 17. In the instant case, the entire petition contains no averments, much less anything, which would demonstrate perversity or malafides. Merely because the matter has to be referred to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and is not so referred, does not necessarily mean that we should infer malafides and perversity. Infact, if there are two conflicting reports, the matter should necessarily go to TAC was an erroneous understanding of this Court''s order. The Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah and Ors. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. (Writ Petition (Lodg) No. 1755 of 2019) decided on 24th June, 2019 and to which one of us (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J) was a party, coupled with the order passed in Writ Petition No. 880 of 2018 and the last judgment and order passed on 10th July 2019, clearly holds, that the earlier directions of this Court have been misconstrued and misinterpreted by the occupants and vested interests to perpetuate occupation of the old and dilapidated buildings. The third argument that these notices have been issued at the instance of the landlord/owners and the landlords/owners in collusion with the Municipal Officials is a faint and feeble attempt to avoid the inevitable. No particulars of the landlord or owner in collusion with which municipal official was ever furnished to this Court in the pleadings or otherwise. In the circumstances, we do not think that, we should uphold any challenge to this notice once the challenge is in vague and general terms. In the present petition, the argument is that, there are conflicting opinions of experts. Even that argument has been dealt with by this Court. We cannot fault the Municipal Corporation, if it leans in favour of the opinion of an expert opining that the building/structure should be pulled down or removed in the interest of public safety. To act on the safer side, does not mean, necessarily acting dishonestly or fraudulently. Apart therefrom, we do not find any conflict in the report or opinion of the expert engaged by the petitioners and the respondents. Both outline as to how this structure is deteriorating. The extensive works including the structural repairs were to be carried out but they have not been able to carry out the same in the light of the inter-se disputes. 18. When the landlord approached the VJTI, we do not think VJTI is an institution which obliges anybody, much less, the landlord. Infact, the VJTI in its report concluded as under : "4. Conclusions Based on Visual Inspection :- 1. There is severe corrosion of reinforcement in slabs and consequent collapse of plaster and cover concrete in various rooms of both the buildings. 2. In Kutbi Manzil building part of plaster pieces of slab are already collapsed and in Nagarwala building plaster pieces are in verge of collapse. 3. At several locations it appears that concrete has been separated from the reinforcement bars and there is consequent swelling of plaster. This may cause collapse of part of plaster pieces. Such swelling was observed at many locations in both buildings and there is danger of injury to occupants. 5. Suggested Further Action :- In view of the above conclusions, we feel that a most of the structural members such as beams and slabs of both the building have lost their load carrying capacity. Such swelling was observed at many locations in both buildings and there is danger of injury to occupants. 5. Suggested Further Action :- In view of the above conclusions, we feel that a most of the structural members such as beams and slabs of both the building have lost their load carrying capacity. Deterioration of concrete and reinforcement is wide spread and severe at few locations. We therefore feel that it is dangerous to occupy both the building as at many places the plaster or concrete pieces are on the verge of falling down. The buildings may collapse in case of earthquake or any natural calamities, because most of the structural component already lost their strength. Kutbi Manzil building is load bearing structure; therefore no lateral resisting system is present in the structures. The buildings may collapse in case of earthquake or any natural calamities, because, most of the structural components already lost their strength. Partial collapse at many places is imminent, which are likely to cause injury to occupants and make the remaining part of the structures unstable and thus progressive collapse of the structure may be possible. Therefore in our opinion structural members of both the buildings are beyond repairable and also both the buildings have already completed more than 45 years that means design life of both the buildings is almost over. In our opinion, the structure can be classified in between C1 and C2." 19. After that as well, the Municipal Corporation waited till 13.10.2011 and pointed out that, its notice under Section 354 dated 30.11.2010 is not complied with. This communication at page 80 and 81 of the paper-book, expressly deals with the failure to abide by the earlier communications. The neglect of old and dilapidated structures endangers public safety and adversely affects public interest is never in dispute. It is in these circumstances, that the municipal authorities issued an ultimatum and withdrew the essential amenities. 20. That the structure has still withstood the monsoons and from 2010 is no answer and we cannot interfere in the writ jurisdiction, merely on the ground that, the impugned notice has been issued way back but the structure has not collapsed on its own despite the same. 21. Even that aspect has been dealt with by the Division Bench in Shah''s case (supra) and we see no reason, to take a different view, of the settled legal position. 21. Even that aspect has been dealt with by the Division Bench in Shah''s case (supra) and we see no reason, to take a different view, of the settled legal position. As a result of the above discussion, these Writ Petitions fail. All interim orders are vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.