ORDER 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim to be occupants of Shops at ground floor of premises bearing No. 1388, Bazar Guliyan, Near Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 , have assailed the demolition order as well as the order dated 31.07.2018 passed under Section 348(4) of the DMC Act whereby portions at different floors in said premises have been identified to be dangerous. 2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the Corporation has passed the impugned order at the behest of respondent No. 2/landlord with the ulterior motive of evicting the petitioner from the subject premises. 3. It is further submitted that though vide impugned order portions of the subject property were declared dangerous for occupation on the basis of a report from the Structural Engineer of MCD, the same stands nullified in view of the subsequent report of Structural Engineer, IIT wherein it was advised that subject to carrying out repairs, the premises are structurally safe. 4. In this regard it is noted that on 24.10.2019, in view of the petitioner's submissions, this Court had directed the Registrar, IIT Delhi to nominate a Structural Engineer to carry out an inspection and file a report with respect to structural safety of the subject premises. In terms of the said order, a report dated 09.03.2020 has been placed on record wherein it has been observed as under: "With reference to the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CMP No. 46950/2019 and WP(C) No. 8249/2018 in the matter of M/s H.K. Dental Solution vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. , to Registrar, IIT Delhi to nominate a Structural Engineer, the undersigned inspected the property situated at 1388/1 Gali Guliyan, Jama Masjid, Delhi, on 03/03/2020. A notice of inspection was sent to the petitioner and respondents on 26/02/2020 and was received by the petitioner, who was present at the location at the time of the inspection. However, the respondents were not present at the time of the inspection. The key observations of the undersigned are listed below. The structure was seen to have two stories above the ground floor. Upon inspection, it was found that the structure is supported on brick masonry columns and walls, with steel beams supporting stone-strip type of roofing. However, the respondents were not present at the time of the inspection. The key observations of the undersigned are listed below. The structure was seen to have two stories above the ground floor. Upon inspection, it was found that the structure is supported on brick masonry columns and walls, with steel beams supporting stone-strip type of roofing. The age of the structure in question is unclear since this information was not available with those present at the time of inspection. From the front, it could be seen that a part of the second floor of the building has been demolished. Other than the part that appeared to have been demolished, no other signs of structural distress were visible from outside. The part of the building in the possession of the petitioner, at the ground floor of the building, was inspected from inside. No signs of structural distress were visible in the walls or the roof of this part of the building. No signs of corrosion or other distress were visible in the steel beams used in the roofing. The second floor of the building was inspected. While a part of the roof and walls at this floor were intact, some parts of the roofs and walls appeared to have been demolished. The debris from the demolition of the front portion of the second floor of the building was found to be present on the floor. It was informed that this debris was lying in the building since several months. No signs of structural distress were visible in the part of the walls and roof that had not been demolished. From the intact part and the debris in the demolished part, it was seen that the roof of the structure was made of stones supported on large steel beams. While the first floor of the building was locked and could not be inspected from inside, from the part that was visible from the staircase, the structure on the first floor appeared to be similar to that on the other two floors and no signs of structural distress were visible. On the basis of the visual inspection, it was found that except the part of the building that had been demolished, there did not appear to be signs of structural distress in the remaining building. On the basis of the visual inspection, it was found that except the part of the building that had been demolished, there did not appear to be signs of structural distress in the remaining building. The walls and columns on which the roofing is supported appeared to be in a good condition and the steel beams supporting the roofs were also found to be in a good condition. The size of the structural members appeared to be adequate for the loads that are expected in a typical building of this size. It is the opinion of the undersigned that the building is in an acceptable structural condition and is not required to be demolished. However, the heavy debris from demolition that is lying on the second floor of the building must be immediately removed to prevent damage to the structure." 5. Mr. Bhola, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Rohatgi Charitable Trust and Dharmendra Aggarwal has disputed the aforesaid report from IIT. Suffice to note that despite being provided with the report on last date of hearing, neither any substantial challenge has been raised to the correctness of the report nor any document has been filed countering it. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that in view of the aforesaid report, the petitioners are willing to bear the expenses to carry out the repairs as advised in the IIT report. It is further submitted that the petitioners undertake not to claim any equity on the basis of repairs to be carried by them. 7. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that after repairs are carried out by the petitioners, a site inspection would be made to reassess the building from the point of structural safety and thereafter action in accordance with law would be taken. 8. In view of the submissions recorded hereinabove and the report of the Structural Engineer, IIT, Delhi, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to the petitioners to carry out repairs in the subject premises as advised expeditiously with a caveat that the same be carried out in accordance with the building bye-laws. It is further directed that the repairs shall also be subject to re-assessment of the premises by the Corporation from the angle of structural safety of the building, who may take further action in accordance with law. 9. It is further directed that the repairs shall also be subject to re-assessment of the premises by the Corporation from the angle of structural safety of the building, who may take further action in accordance with law. 9. It is noted that since the report of Structural Engineer, IIT also mentions that the debris lying on the second floor needs to be removed to prevent damage to the building, respondent No.2 is directed to remove the debris immediately. It is clarified that in case the petitioners are aggrieved by any further action of the Corporation, they shall be at liberty to seek remedy in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous.