ORDER : 1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the notice issued under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in Writ Petition No. 2399 of 2017 and in' Writ Petition No. 3323 of 2018. We have heard Mr. Tripathi appearing for the petitioners. 2. The building in question is identified as Gulab Baug. The petitioners do not suppress anything from this Court in para 2 of the Memo of the Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 2399 of 2017). It is candidly stated that, this building is a L-Shape Building and curved at the corner. The longer side of the building is parallel to M.G. Road facing Santacruz Railway Station and the building comprises of ground plus one upper floor with part sloping mangalore tiles roof and part second floor with terrace floor above it at middle and corner of the building. The ground floor is commercial floor where shop line exists. The building is having two R.C.C. staircase from ground floor to first floor forming two wings in the building known as north side wing and south side wing. The middle portion of the building is having access from first floor to second floor by steel staircase. The ground floor of the building is occupied by shops and first floor is residential. 3. After describing as to how the construction is carried out, the petitioners candidly say that each one of them and there in all forty-seven in number together with their predecessors have been residing and carrying on their day-to-day affairs for past more than fifty years. It is claimed that the fifth respondent purchased the property and he started harassing them. The harassment is stated to be of such an extent that this fifth respondent influenced the Municipal Officials (respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to this petition) into initiating action under Section 351 and other provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. These notices have been duly challenged in the Court of law. The fifth respondent also filed several eviction suits in the Court of Small Causes and they are pending. 4. Now on 9th June, 2017, the Municipal Corporation called upon the petitioners to vacate the building as the same is in dilapidated condition and is required to be pulled down. These notices have been duly challenged in the Court of law. The fifth respondent also filed several eviction suits in the Court of Small Causes and they are pending. 4. Now on 9th June, 2017, the Municipal Corporation called upon the petitioners to vacate the building as the same is in dilapidated condition and is required to be pulled down. The Technical Advisory Committee of the Corporation met and opined on 6th May, 2017 that the structure is dangerous or in a ruinous condition and likely to fall. After the petitioners are in receipt of this notice, they say that their harassment is such that even the Santacruz Police Station staff informed them about this notice. 5. The original petitioners in para 10 say that, the Municipal Corporation does not call upon the landlord to pull down the building but it calls upon him to repair the building. Merely because he neglects it, does not mean that the petitioners are also neglecting it or particularly the repairs to it. They employed one, M/s. ANA Consultants, a Structural Engineer to evaluate the stability of the said building. This consulting firm inspected the building and submitted its report to the Assistant Engineer, Building and Factory Department, H/W. Ward Office along with the forwarding letter dated 12th July, 2013. Thus, on receipt of the impugned notice, the petitioners stated that they have promptly moved by engaging the services of the Structural Engineer and also through their advocate requested the Municipal Corporation and the fifth respondent to allow them to repair the building. 6. One structural engineer and R.C.C. Consultant, Mr. Kishore N. Bhoir, a Structural Engineer offered his services and the petitioner availed them so as to carry out another structural audit of the building, he clearly says that the building is stable and would only require repairs. 7. However, the Municipal Corporation has been calling upon the petitioners to obtain a report not from such Engineers and Consultants but from institutions of repute like, HT/Sardar Patel College of Engineering or VJTI. 8. The essential argument of the petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Tripathi is that the Municipal Corporation and the petitioners continue to engage themselves in such correspondence but had the Municipal Corporation granted permission to carry out repairs, possibly the intervention of this Court was unnecessary. 9. 8. The essential argument of the petitioner's Counsel, Mr. Tripathi is that the Municipal Corporation and the petitioners continue to engage themselves in such correspondence but had the Municipal Corporation granted permission to carry out repairs, possibly the intervention of this Court was unnecessary. 9. Reliance is placed in that regard on the averments in the writ petition and the report of the structural auditor. 10. There is an affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 5. in this affidavit-in-reply, this respondent says that the structural audit was carried out. However, the respondent No. 5 does not dispute that the building is ground plus two storeyed structure and is around 94 years old. It is situated right across Santacruz Railway Station and its roof may fall at any point of the day. This building was inspected and found to be in dilapidated condition. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the owners and occupants but in accordance with the directions of the Municipal Corporation, he had engaged the services of M/s. Sura Associates, Consultants and Structural Engineers for the purpose of ascertaining the structural stability of the building and carrying out structural audit. That Auditor submitted a report dated 12th August, 2013 and opined that this structure/building is beyond repairs. It must be pulled down at the earliest to avoid any damage or harm to human life and property. The report was submitted to the Municipal Corporation by forwarding letter dated 14th July, 2013. 11. Notice was also received by the occupants and they appointed consultant, M/s. Ana Consultants, as stated above, and carried out structural audit. After both the reports were there on record, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation says that the services of Sardar Patel College of Engineering be engaged for carrying out the structural audit. The structural audit could not be carried out by this agency. The Long Cause Suit being Suit No. 3267 of 2015 was filed and that was to restrain the occupants from creating any obstruction in carrying out the structural audit. The ad interim injunction was refused. An Appeal was preferred in this Court and that Appeal From Order was disposed of by directing the parties to carry out independent structural audit and submit their report. 12. The ad interim injunction was refused. An Appeal was preferred in this Court and that Appeal From Order was disposed of by directing the parties to carry out independent structural audit and submit their report. 12. Thus, it is claimed that the structural audit has been carried out and now even an expert agency like IIT has certified that the building requires major structural repairs urgently and the cost would be about Rs. 50,00,000/-. There is a further reference in this Affidavit to an opinion from M/s. CONPRO Consultants and they have also opined that the building is very weak, it is beyond repairs and major portion is in distress condition. It is claimed that, the shop owners have carried out unauthorised construction. This report categorizes the building as C-1. It is thus stated that the building cannot be repaired but must be brought down as it is unfit for human habitation. 13. Then a reference is made to the report of the Technical Advisory Committee and its opinion which says that the building may collapse any time. 14. The Affidavits that have been filed by the Municipal Corporation reveal that the Municipal Corporation also engaged the services of a Consulting Engineer to carry out a structural audit in terms of the directions of the learned single Judge of this court. The Consulting Engineer engaged by the Municipal Corporation holds a similar view. 15. Thus, the Municipal Corporation says that the inspections are regularly carried out and they reveal the condition of the building. It is precarious. Now even the site inspection report by the Technical Advisory Committee is on record. The opinion of the Technical Advisory Committee as set out in its report of 21.04.2017 is placed on record. 16. We are not required to refer to any other materials and for the simple reason that the petitioners may seek to controvert the position at site. However, we are not sitting in appeal over the conclusions of the technical experts. The technical experts may have differing views but by itself, it is not enough, for us to interfere in writ jurisdiction. 17. We have already outlined the parameters. It is clear that the additional affidavit of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation refers to the Technical Advisory Committee meeting held on 22.6.2018. Now, the Technical Advisory Committee and the IIT together categorize the building as C-1 category. 17. We have already outlined the parameters. It is clear that the additional affidavit of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation refers to the Technical Advisory Committee meeting held on 22.6.2018. Now, the Technical Advisory Committee and the IIT together categorize the building as C-1 category. The building has to be evacuated. 18. We do not think that we should indulge the petitioners any further, particularly after this Court issued directions in its order dated 26.3.2019. We do not think that the Affidavits of private parties should be given weightage. 19. It is thus clear that, the Municipal Corporation did not issue the notice on a mere ipse dixit or at the instance of the respondent No. 5. Infact, the Municipal Corporation is repeatedly requesting this Court to vacate all interim directions in this Writ Petition. There is a Notice of Motion No. 216 of 2019 placed on record by the Municipal Corporation making this written request and it relies on the report of the Technical Advisory Committee and its conclusion. 20. We are therefore of the firm view that such old structure, which is highly dilapidated and dangerous at the junction of a road near Santacruz Railway Station cannot continue to exist and must be brought down. It is likely to collapse. We have already made extensive reference to the arguments of the Counsel and we find that the petitioner's request to grant time to carry out repairs is unacceptable. We do not think that, we should allow parties like the petitioners or the owners to indulge in an exercise of some cosmetic repairs. The structural repairs to be carried out would require the petitioners to vacate their premises and for all we know, such a building which is nearly 100 years old may collapse during such extensive repairs or portions of it may fall. On such occasions, it is the passers-by who would be suffering the consequence, equally, one cannot afford a traffic congestion after an untoward incident. It is in the above circumstances, we are of the view that, the Writ Petitions have no merit. Both the Writ Petitions therefore deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. 21. Ordinarily, we would have imposed heavy costs but we find that there were directions issued by this Court so as to enable the parties to carry out a corrective exercise. Both the Writ Petitions therefore deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. 21. Ordinarily, we would have imposed heavy costs but we find that there were directions issued by this Court so as to enable the parties to carry out a corrective exercise. That is not possible any longer given the disputes between them and only for this reason we do not impose costs. 22. With the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2399 of 2017, Notice of Motion No. 216 of 2019 does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed of.