Supreme Court Overturns Bombay High Court Order on Dilapidated Building Repairs: Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam (20 July 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2021

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2848 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1837 of 2021)

Judges: Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian

Can a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, order the repair of a building when expert opinions deem it dangerous and in need of demolition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a dilapidated building in Mumbai. The court overturned a Bombay High Court order that had allowed a tenant to carry out repairs on a building that had been classified as dangerous by a Technical Advisory Committee. This judgment highlights the limits of judicial intervention in matters requiring technical expertise and underscores the importance of prioritizing public safety.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice V. Ramasubramanian. The judgment was authored by Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property in Mumbai owned by the Appellant, Shubhas Jain. The property consists of three interconnected structures built in 1930. Over time, these structures deteriorated, leading to concerns about their safety. The Appellant had 24 tenants in the building, including the Respondent No. 1, Rajeshwari Shivam.

Several structural audits were conducted on the building. M/s. Manohar Ashthavadhani & Associates, in their report dated 25.05.2014, concluded that the buildings were in a dangerous and critical condition, beyond economical repair, and advised immediate vacation for the safety of the occupants. The Municipal Corporation of Mumbai also issued notices under Section 488 and Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the “Municipal Corporation Act”), for inspection and demolition of the structures, respectively. The building was classified as C-1 category, requiring immediate evacuation and demolition.

The Respondent No. 1 challenged the demolition notice in the City Civil Court, Bombay, which refused to grant a stay. An appeal against this order was also rejected by the High Court. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation referred the matter to the Technical Advisory Committee due to conflicting reports. The Technical Advisory Committee initially suggested temporary repairs, but later, after further review, declared the structures as C-1 category, citing their age and lack of maintenance. Despite this, the Respondent No. 1 obtained a report from M/s Shetgiri and Associates suggesting that the building’s life could be extended with repairs. This led to the Bombay High Court allowing the Respondent No. 1 to carry out repairs, which was challenged in this appeal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent No. 1 initially challenged the demolition notice issued under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act in the City Civil Court, Bombay. The City Civil Court refused to grant a stay on the demolition. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 1 appealed this order in the High Court, but the appeal was rejected.

Following this, the Municipal Corporation referred the matter to the Technical Advisory Committee due to conflicting structural audit reports. The Technical Advisory Committee initially suggested temporary repairs but later classified the buildings as C-1 category, which requires immediate evacuation and demolition. Despite this, the Respondent No. 1 obtained a report from M/s Shetgiri and Associates, which suggested that the building’s life could be extended with repairs. Based on this report, the Bombay High Court allowed the Respondent No. 1 to carry out repairs. This order of the Bombay High Court was challenged by the Appellant in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (now known as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act). The following sections are relevant:

• Section 488 of the Municipal Corporation Act: This section pertains to the inspection of structures. A notice under this section was issued by the Municipal Corporation for inspection of the structures at the premises in question.
• Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act: This section empowers the Municipal Corporation to issue notices for demolition of dangerous structures. A notice under this section was issued for the demolition of the premises in question, as the building was declared to be of C-1 category.
• Section 353(B) of the Municipal Corporation Act: This section pertains to the examination of buildings by a Licensed Structural Engineer. The Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the Appellant under this section, calling upon him to get the building examined by a Licensed Structural Engineer.

These provisions are aimed at ensuring public safety by identifying and addressing dangerous structures within the city. The Municipal Corporation is empowered to take necessary actions, including demolition, to mitigate the risks associated with such structures.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Appellant argued that the High Court had erred in directing the removal of a wall based on the report of M/s Shetgiri and Associates, especially when there were conflicting reports, including the Technical Advisory Committee’s report, which had declared the building to be of C-1 category.
• The Appellant contended that the High Court should not have made a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decided which one was acceptable.
• The Appellant emphasized that the report of M/s Shetgiri and Associates was not a certificate of stability.
• The Appellant pointed out that the structures were interconnected and that structural repair of any one structure would affect the stability of the adjacent structure.
• The Appellant highlighted that all other tenants except 6, including the Respondent No.1, had agreed to vacate the premises.
• The Appellant submitted that the structures were in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and had been declared as of the C-1 category. One of the structures was of the C-2A category.
• The Appellant presented a proposal to the Respondent No.1, similar to those given to other tenants, offering alternate accommodation and a new flat in the redeveloped building.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent No. 1 relied on the report of M/s Shetgiri and Associates, which stated that the life of the structure could be enhanced for 5 to 6 years after repairs.
• The Respondent No. 1 challenged the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act.
• The Respondent No. 1 had earlier challenged the demolition notice in the City Civil Court, Bombay, and the order of the City Civil Court was upheld by the High Court.
• The Respondent No.1 submitted a certificate of stability dated 13.11.2015 by M/s Crown Consultants, stating that the structure was safe for the next five years, subject to annual civil and structural maintenance work.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue that the Supreme Court addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the removal of a wall with the assistance of M/s. Shetgiri and Associates, when there were conflicting reports, including an earlier report of the Technical Advisory Committee, declaring the building to be of the C-1 category?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 488 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (now known as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act): This provision deals with the inspection of structures.
• Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (now known as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act): This provision empowers the Municipal Corporation to issue notices for the demolition of dangerous structures.
• Section 353(B) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (now known as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act): This provision pertains to the examination of buildings by a Licensed Structural Engineer.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s order. The court held that the High Court had erred in directing the removal of a wall based on the report of M/s Shetgiri and Associates, especially when there were conflicting reports, including the Technical Advisory Committee’s report, which had declared the building to be of C-1 category. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should not adjudicate on hotly disputed questions of fact or make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports.

The Supreme Court also noted that the report of M/s Shetgiri and Associates was not a certificate of stability and that the High Court had overlooked the limitations mentioned in the report. The court further observed that the structures were interconnected, and repairs to one would affect the stability of the others. The Supreme Court also took into consideration the proposal made by the Appellant to the Respondent No.1, which was similar to the proposal offered to other tenants.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• Conflicting Technical Reports: The Court noted that there were conflicting technical reports regarding the condition of the building. The Technical Advisory Committee had classified the building as C-1, indicating that it was dangerous and required immediate demolition, while M/s Shetgiri and Associates had suggested that the building’s life could be extended with repairs. The Court held that the High Court should not have made a comparative assessment of these conflicting reports.
• Limitations of the Shetgiri Report: The Court emphasized that the report of M/s Shetgiri and Associates was not a certificate of stability and that the High Court had overlooked the limitations mentioned in the report. The report itself stated that it was based on visual inspection and did not comment on the condition of the structure below the plinth.
• Safety Concerns: The Court prioritized the safety of the occupants and the public. The C-1 classification by the Technical Advisory Committee indicated that the building was in a dangerous condition, and the Court was not convinced that the repairs suggested by M/s Shetgiri and Associates would ensure the safety of the building.
• Jurisdictional Limits: The Court reiterated that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should not adjudicate on hotly disputed questions of fact or make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports. The Court emphasized that such matters should be left to experts.
• Reasonableness of the Appellant’s Proposal: The Court noted that the Appellant had made a reasonable proposal to the Respondent No.1, similar to the proposals offered to other tenants. This proposal included providing alternate accommodation and a new flat in the redeveloped building.

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure public safety and to uphold the principle that High Courts should not interfere in matters requiring technical expertise. The Court’s emphasis on the limitations of the Shetgiri report and the reasonableness of the Appellant’s proposal further solidified its decision.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to ensure public safety and to uphold the principle that High Courts should not interfere in matters requiring technical expertise. The Court’s emphasis on the limitations of the Shetgiri report and the reasonableness of the Appellant’s proposal further solidified its decision.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Judicial Restraint: High Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with technical matters that require expert opinions. They should not adjudicate on hotly disputed questions of fact in their writ jurisdiction.
• Importance of Expert Opinions: The opinions of expert bodies like the Technical Advisory Committee should be given due weight, especially when they are based on thorough assessments.
• Safety First: Public safety should be the paramount consideration when dealing with dangerous structures.
• Limitations of Technical Reports: Courts should carefully consider the limitations and qualifications mentioned in technical reports before relying on them.
• Reasonable Proposals: Landlords who offer reasonable proposals for alternate accommodation and redevelopment should be encouraged.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, but it did state that the Appellant should abide by the conditions of the offer made to the Respondent No. 1, if the Respondent No. 1 agrees to accept the same.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not interfere in matters requiring technical expertise and should not adjudicate on hotly disputed questions of fact in their writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that public safety is paramount and that expert opinions should be given due weight. This judgment reinforces the need for judicial restraint in matters that require specialized knowledge and highlights the importance of adhering to established procedures for assessing the safety of structures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam & Ors. underscores the importance of judicial restraint in matters involving technical expertise and public safety. The Court overturned the Bombay High Court’s order, emphasizing that High Courts should not make comparative assessments of conflicting technical reports or adjudicate on disputed facts in their writ jurisdiction. The judgment reinforces the need to prioritize public safety and to give due weight to expert opinions, particularly when dealing with dangerous structures. The Court also highlighted the limitations of technical reports and the importance of considering all factors before making decisions that could impact public safety.