1. The challenge as laid in the petition is to a notice issued by respondent no.1-Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (for short ""KDMC"") dated
March 25, 2021 and a communication dated June 21, 2021 issued under sections 264, 265, 265-A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act,
1949. By the impugned notices, the petitioners were called upon to vacate the premises occupied by the petitioners which are described in paragraph 2
of the writ petition (for short 'the premises').
2. The impugned notice and the communication were issued for the reason that the premises were rendered dangerous for human habitation.
Respondent No.3 is the landlord of the premises, also there are other structures on the land in question.
3. On the earlier occasion when we had heard this petition, it was contended by Mr.Deokar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Ward Ofcer
had no authority to issue impugned notice. Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation had placed before us a decision of the Municipal
Corporation which showed that the Ward Ofcer was delegated the powers to issue the impugned notice. Thus, the challenge to the notice on such
ground could not be taken forward by the petitioners.
4. On this backdrop, we have heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us from the record that the premises which are in occupation of the
petitioners are more than 50 years old and have become dangerous for the petitioners habitation and are likely to collapse as informed by the
Municipal Corporation.
5. Mr.Deokar, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners ought not to be called upon to vacate the premises and that the
petitioners should be permitted to undertake structural repairs, for the reason that respondent no.3 has so far not shown any willingness that the
petitioners would be provided with alternate premises of an equivalent area in the redeveloped premises which would be constructed by the
respondent no.3-landlord. We had accordingly called upon the respondent no.3-landlord to place on record its stand on such contention as urged on
behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, an afdavit of respondent no.3 dated July 06, 2021 is placed on record in which the respondent no.3 has agreed
to provide to the petitioners accommodation of equivalent existing area in the newly constructed building. Such averment is made in paragraph 8 which
reads thus:-
8] I say that Petitioners are openly threatening us that unless we settle at their terms, they would harass till last. The Petitioners intends to block
and/or delay the construction to extort money from us, and nothing else. I say that suit premises and all other tenements are in dilapidated condition. I
say that the Respondent No.3 agrees and undertakes to this Hon'ble Court to provide Accommodation of equivalent existing Area to the Petitioner in
the newly constructed building in the said Property on tenancy basis as per law and in case the petitioners are interested in ownership, the deponent is
ready to provide the same area at a subsided rate of Rs.2000/- per sq. ft. where as the market value as on today is at about Rs.8000/- per sq. ft.
We accept such statement as made on behalf of respondent no.3.
6. The other concern as raised by Mr.Deokar is in regard to the measurement of the area in occupation of the petitioners, He states that at a time the
petitioners would vacate the premises, the Municipal Corporation ought to undertake measurement of the actual area in occupation of the petitioners.
Mr.Rao, learned counsel for the KDMC has submitted that under the usual exercise as undertaken by the Municipal Corporation in regard to the
structures which are called upon to be vacated, a measurement of the area in occupation is undertaken by the Municipal Corporation. We are of the
opinion that it would be appropriate that a joint measurement of the area of the petitioners be undertaken by the KDMC in the presence of
representative of the landlord and the petitioners, so that the same can be certifed and put on the record of the Municipal Corporation as also furnished
to the parties.
7. We accept the assurances of the respondents.
8. As both the apprehensions of the petitioners as noted by us stand satisfed, Mr.Deokar, on instructions, submits that the petitioners would intend to
withdraw this petition, he however submits that considering the fact that the monsoon has already set in, the petitioners be permitted to occupy
premises till September 30, 2021. In so contending Mr.Deokar states that for such period, the petitioners shall occupy the premises at their own risk
and consequences. Mr.Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no.3 would not have any objection to such suggestion as made by Mr.Deokar.
9. We accordingly permit the petitioners to occupy the premises till September 30, 2021, however, they shall do so at their own risk and consequences,
and in the event of any untoward incident of building collapse, the petitioners shall not hold liable the municipal authorities and/or any other authorities
and the landlord. The petitioners shall place on record within one week from today an undertaking that the petitioners shall vacate the premises on or
before September 30, 2021. Copy of such undertaking by the petitioners shall be forwarded to the KDMC as well as to the advocate for respondent
no.3. The impugned notice and communication hence shall stand suspended till September 30, 2021. In the event such an undertaking is not furnished
as directed, the KDMC is free to pursue the impugned notices.
10. Subject to the above terms, we permit the petitioners to withdraw this petition.
11. Disposed of. No costs.
