Case Note & Summary
This writ petition before the Bombay High Court concerned a dangerous building known as 'Vikas Building' situated in the Fort area of Mumbai. The petitioner, Vikas Premises Co-op Soc Ltd., was the owner of the ground plus four storeyed building, which had about 37 commercial tenements. The building was approximately 129 years old and had been categorized as extremely ruinous under C-1 category, with imminent risk of collapse. On 21 June 2025, the Disaster Control Cell of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation vacated the building in an urgent situation, and water and electricity supply were disconnected. The petitioner approached the Court, contending that it would attempt to repair the building. The Court observed that the petitioner was 'too-too' late in time to raise such contention, given the imminent danger to occupants and the public in the busy commercial area. The Court referred to its earlier suo motu public interest litigation in High Court on its own motion (In the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386, which arose from building collapses causing numerous deaths. The Court quoted observations emphasizing that the right to livelihood includes the right to live in safe buildings, and that owners, occupants, and municipal authorities all bear constitutional and legal obligations to ensure structural safety. Municipal officers must not turn a blind eye to ruinous buildings and are accountable for collapses. The court in the earlier decision also noted that if occupants resist vacating ruinous buildings and approach civil courts, such courts should be extremely slow to interfere as any interference may endanger lives of others. The present court stated it was duty bound to refer to these principles. The extracted portion of the judgment ends without the final operative order; therefore, the final decision and directions are not available from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Livelihood - Right to live in safe buildings included in right to livelihood - Not mentioned - The Court referred to its earlier suo motu PIL where it was held that people losing lives in building collapses must be completely obliterated; the right to livelihood includes the right to live in safe buildings and houses; owners and occupants have a constitutional obligation to ensure safety of premises so that lives are not endangered by a likely collapse. Held that safety of building/premises is paramount (Paras 3, 91). B) Municipal Law - Accountability for Ruinous Buildings - Municipal officers and machinery accountable for collapse and must enforce structural safety - Not mentioned - The Court quoted observations that there is variety of powers available with municipal authorities to enforce obligations of owners/occupants; it is a lawful duty of officers not to turn a blind eye to ruinous buildings; inaction leading to collapse makes them accountable; strict enforcement of provisions is expected. Held that municipal authorities must take forcible measures as permissible in law against occupants resisting vacation (Paras 3, 92-93). C) Building Safety - Obligations of Owners and Occupants - Owners and occupants responsible for maintaining safe premises - Not mentioned - The Court noted that the petitioner owner of a C-1 category dangerous building approached the Court too late to contend repair after the building was vacated due to imminent collapse; owners and occupants are responsible for negligence leading to collapse; civil courts should be extremely slow to interfere with vacation of ruinous buildings as interference may endanger lives of others. Held that structural safety of buildings is a collective social consciousness required (Paras 1-3, 92).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner society, as owner of a C-1 category ruinous building, can be permitted to attempt repairs after the building was vacated due to imminent collapse; and what are the obligations and accountability of owners, occupants, and municipal authorities in respect of dilapidated buildings.
Law Points
- Right to livelihood includes right to live in safe buildings
- owners and occupants have constitutional obligation to maintain premises safely
- municipal authorities must strictly enforce provisions against dangerous structures
- municipal officers are accountable for building collapses
- courts should be slow to interfere with forcible vacation of ruinous buildings
