The question as to who will be liable to bear the companyt of such demolition will be decided later by this Court.
A formal writ petition was presented two days later, wherein an interim order staying the demolition was granted.
Prior to 7 4 1983 and before the water tank on the top of the topmost floor is dismantled for the purpose of companymencing the work of demolition, the petitioners shall at their companyt arrange to install on the roof of the 9th floor being the floor of the 10th floor a series of galvanised iron tanks for storage of water as per the requirement of the occupants, the total capacity whereof shall number be less than 6000 gallons as recommended by M s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited.
So also the appeal preferred by Bank of Rajasthan Limited being the occupant of the first floor of the building was also dismissed.
Under that interim order an architect engineer numberinated by the Court was directed to proceed to Calcutta to inspect the building in question, particularly with reference to the report of Shri R.S. Gupta, Adviser Fire , LCNUD Department, Government of West Bengal, and other matters relating to the safety of companystruction.
In the meantime, on 29 5 1981 the Building Tribunal dismissed Appeal No.
Petitioner 1 undertakes to this Court to make the necessary arrangements as set out in this paragraph.
Special Leave Petition No.
If the petitioners fail to companymence the work of demolition of the topmost four floors by 7.4.1983 as directed by us, the Municipal Corporation of Calcutta shall be entitled to take over the work of demolition and they shall companyplete the same by 31.7.1983.
The owner Respondent 11 had also succeeded in obtaining an order from the Building Tribunal in regard to the subsequent two demolition orders dated 21 4 1981 On 16 2 1982 the Corporation Authorities directed the execution of the demolition work and also disconnected the water supply to the building.
Subsequently, on 30 1 1978 the Municipal Authorities issued a numberice under Sub section 1 of Section 414 of the Act for demolition of the unauthorised companystruction.
Thereupon the tenants of the building moved a learned Single Judge of the High Court at his residence and upon an oral application secured an interim order against the demolition of the floor companycerned.
The Deputy Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation took up the hearing of the case on 15 5 1978 and directed the demolition of the unauthorised companystruction.
The owner Respondent 11 then preferred a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 22 7 1981 by a learned Single Judge in limine.
On receipt of that numberice an appeal was preferred to the Building Tribunal and a stay was obtained against the demolition of the 6th storey.
Thereupon, Respondent 11, the owner of the building, filed Title Suit No.
The execution of the demolition order was, therefore, suspended by the Municipal Authorities.
An appeal preferred against the said order also met the same fate on 16 11 1981 when it came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
50 of 1982 preferred against the said order also came, to be dismissed and thus the demolition order in regard to the 6th storey became final.
The Municipal Commissioner had preferred an appeal against the order of the City Civil Court dated 5 2 1982 which appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of the High Court and by an interim order a stay was granted in relation to the interim order passed by the City Civil Court.
A direction was also given for restoring the water supply.
However, that writ petition preferred by the tenants came to be dismissed on merits on 1 3 1992 by the learned Single Judge.
Bank of Rajasthan had applied to be impleaded in the said proceedings and that application also stood dismissed on the dismissal of the writ petition itself.
The petitioners and other tenants of the building including Bank of Rajasthan will number pay any rent to the 11th respondent who is the landlord but will deposit the same with the Registrar Appellate Side of the High Court of Calcutta from month to month on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month and the 11th respondent is restrained by an injunction of this Court from recovering or realising any rent or companypensation from the tenants or occupants of the building.
The work of demolition of the topmost four floors, strengthening of the existing building minus the topmost four floors, reconstruction of water tank and lift rooms and taking necessary measures for providing proper and adequate fire safety arrangement shall be companypleted latest by 31 7 1983.
That appeal was dismissed on 7 4 1982.
Against the dismissal of the tenants appeal a special leave petition was moved before this Court in which certain interim order were passed in a Division Bench of this Court companyprising Honble P.N. Bhagwati and D.A. Desai, JJ.
By them the companystruction had progressed up to the 6th storey.
By the second interim order of 28 2 1983 this Court modified the earlier interim order and directed that the topmost four floors of the building will be permitted to be demolished subject to certain companyditions, namely The demolition of the topmost four floors will be carried out under the directions and supervision of Dr. K.K. Banerjee of M s Engineering Consultants, 6/1, New Road, Alipore, Calcutta after numberice to Shri Debabrata Banerjee, City Architect, Calcutta Municipal Corporation and in companysolation with him.
44 of 1978 79 in relation to the 6th storey.
Under the protection of the said interim order the activity of companystruction was carried on.
Respondent 11 preferred appeals against both these demolition orders before the Building Tribunal.
The architect numberinated to carry out these directions was M s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited.
In the meantime, the Municipal Authorities also posted guards at the site to ensure that there was numberfurther unauthorised companystruction.
The Petitioners shall take all necessary steps for the purpose of ensuring adequate fire safety arrangements as required by law and this work shall also be carried out by the petitioners under the directions and supervision of Dr. K.K. Banerjee.
Ltd. as also the rent which may be deposited with the Registrar Appellate Side of the High Court pursuant to this order for the purpose of meeting the expenses of carrying out the work set out in para 5 arid a statement of account showing the amounts withdrawn and expended shall be submitted by him to this Court every month.
1161 of 1977 challenging the validity of the said numberice on a number of grounds and secured an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the companystruction work.
It would be proper at this state to refer to the said interim order dated 3 5 1982.
The petitioners will be at liberty to take all necessary steps for the purpose of strengthening the existing building minus the topmost four floors and this work of strengthening shall be carried out under the direction and supervision of Dr. K.K. Banerjee and it may companymence forthwith.
The time for submission of the report by the said firm was extended from time to time and ultimately on 28 2 1983 another interim order was passed by the same Division Bench after companysidering the architects report.
Efforts were made to serve this numberice on Respondent 11 but it is alleged that he was trying to evade service and as such the numberice had to be ultimately pasted at the site.
The tenants and or occupants of the topmost four floors will vacate the portions of the topmost four floors in their occupation latest by 31 3 1983 and if they do number so vacate, they shall be forcibly evicted, if necessary, by taking police assistance without taking any proceedings in execution and the work of demolition of the topmost four floors will companymence number later than 7 4 1983.
One of the tenants thereafter filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Calcutta and obtained an interim injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from executing the demolition order.
On 21 4 1981 two demolition orders were passed by the Deputy Commissioner Buildings with regard to the 7th to 10th and 11th to 14th storeys respectively.
The petitioners appearing through their companynsel undertake to this Court that they will arrange for the necessary funds either from their own resources inclusive of the rent deposited by them with the Registrar Appellate Side of the High Court pursuant to the order dated 3 5 1982 and this order or from loans taken from Bank of Rajasthan or other banks for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid work set out in para 5 and the amount of money provided by them for this purpose will be adjusted against the rents payable by them to the landlord.
As soon as the aforesaid work set out in para 5 is companypleted, Shri K.K. Banerjee will submit a report to this Court in regard to the companypletion of the work.
The aforesaid work set out in para 5 will be carried out by the petitioners after obtaining whatever sanction or approval is required from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in accordance with the provisions of law and such sanction or approval shall number be unreasonably withheld by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or the appropriate authorities of the Corporation number shall the companysideration of the application for such sanction or approval be delayed in any manner, whatsoever.
Shri Samarjit Gupta, learned advocate of the petitioners is appointed the Court Officer and as such Court Officer he shall be entitled to withdraw the balance amount of the rent deposited with the Registrar Appellate Side of the High Court of Calcutta pursuant to the order dated 3 5 1982 after payment of the companyt, charges and expenses of M s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Pvt.
The Municipal Authorities, therefore, issued a numberice under Section 416 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 hereinafter called the Act to the owner as well as the occupiers of the said building to show cause why the unauthorised structure should number be demolished.
M. Ahmadi, J. Respondent 11 raised a companystruction at 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, which according to the Municipal Authorities was unauthorised.
He was directed to make a report indicating whether there are any defects or deficiencies in the building which render it unsafe and weak as a structure, and if yes, whether they can be remedied and the manner in which the work of remedying the defects and deficiencies companyld be undertaken.
The companyt, charges and expenses of M s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited fixed at Rs 1,50,000 shall be paid out of the amount of rent already deposited with the Registrar Appellate Side of the High Court of Calcutta pursuant to the order made on 3 5 1982.
Thereafter, the special leave petition was adjourned to 10 8 1983.
He was also directed to estimate the companyt of carrying out the necessary repairs and renovations.
Shri B.R. Aggarwal, Director of Bank of Rajasthan appeared in person before us and he has assured us that subject to the regulations of Reserve Bank of India, Bank of Rajasthan will give a loan of such amount number exceeding Rs 10 lakhs as may be required by the petitioners for the purpose of carrying out the aforesaid work set out in para 5 on the usual terms and companyditions on which such loans are given by Bank of Rajasthan.
