If you believe that dilapidated buildings pose a threat only to owners or occupants you are highly mistaken because if the building collapses it can damage the vicinity as well, observed the Bombay High Court (HC). The court made these remarks while dismissing a petition filed by a society in Andheri.
A society in the suburban area had filed a lawsuit to contest the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)'s assessment that categorizes the structures as C-1 and orders their immediate evacuation and pulling down the structures.
The BMC notice was being challenged in a suit filed by Purab Paschim Cooperative Housing Society Ltd in Andheri (West).
A division bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata was hearing the case. The bench observed, “The mistake is to assume that the condition of a building only affects the owner of the building and its occupants. That is far from the truth. Almost anywhere in Mumbai a building collapse poses danger to others in the vicinity, including passers-by. That is the larger interest to be served.”
The judges stated that because the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is made up of subject-matter specialists, the opinion of the TAC cannot be substituted with the opinion of the court.
The society owns two structures at Gilbert Hill Road with ground plus seven floors and another with ground plus six floors. In February this year, it received a notice from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) which claimed that the buildings were being deemed structurally unsound and were being told to be demolished "at the instance of rapacious landlords and property owners with the active connivance of municipal officials". The BMC published a notification at the beginning of the year that prompted the society to contact HC.
In response to this, the HC granted relief to the society after the inhabitants asserted that the structures were otherwise physically sound. It exclaimed that "no one shall be held responsible for any mishap" and that the residents were doing so "at their own risk" at the time.
The bench noted that the TAC commissions a third investigation whenever there are conflicting reports about structural stability. It is made up of BMC internal experts.
The court further stressed on the part that ‘the TAC's opinion cannot be substituted with a court's viewpoint or judgement.’
The bench ruled that the factual disagreement over the building's structural state cannot be settled by a court. The court also stated that it is not a structural engineer. It is ill-equipped to respond to inquiries like these, and hence, the TAC as a whole was formed.
The court further reassured the inhabitants that it is a well-established principle that tenancies and occupancies continue to exist and do not disappear when a building is torn down for reconstruction in order to calm their fears.
Share
Tweet
