Ram Awatar Agarwal and others Vs. Corporation of Calcutta and others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6416 of 1983
Petitioner: Ram Awatar Agarwal and others
Respondent: Corporation of Calcutta and others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6416 of 1983
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I., S.P. BHARUCHA & S.C. SEN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 20, 1996
Head Note:
BUILDING LAWS
Calcutta Municipal Act 1951
Sections 414 and 416 -Unauthorised construction of building – Directions for demolition – Construction of unauthorised building endangering not only the occupants but also the neighbouring buildings and passer-by – Directions by Municipal authorities for demolition – Suspension of demolition proceedings on directions of Tribunal – Interim order of stay of demolition by High Court – Supreme Court nomi-nating an engineer to inspect the building and submit a report – Subsequently Court giving further directions for carrying out certain modifications in the construction while upholding the direction for demolition of the top four floors. Held that upon submission of the report of the Court appointed engineer, Court finding the building to be still unsafe and refusing to regularise the un-authorised construction. Municipal, authorities directed to carry out the demolition. Further direction that no court shall entertain any suit in relation to the building.
Calcutta Municipal Act 1951
Sections 414 and 416 -Unauthorised construction of building – Directions for demolition – Construction of unauthorised building endangering not only the occupants but also the neighbouring buildings and passer-by – Directions by Municipal authorities for demolition – Suspension of demolition proceedings on directions of Tribunal – Interim order of stay of demolition by High Court – Supreme Court nomi-nating an engineer to inspect the building and submit a report – Subsequently Court giving further directions for carrying out certain modifications in the construction while upholding the direction for demolition of the top four floors. Held that upon submission of the report of the Court appointed engineer, Court finding the building to be still unsafe and refusing to regularise the un-authorised construction. Municipal, authorities directed to carry out the demolition. Further direction that no court shall entertain any suit in relation to the building.
Held:
We, on perusal of the record are satisfied that this is a case of the owner in the first instance and thereafter the tenants abusing the process of the court with a view to delaying the demolition of the wholly unauthorised structure. We cannot countenance such violation of the building rules and requirements which continue notwithstanding the indulgence shown by this Court through the interim orders of 3-5-1982 and 28-2-1983. We share the feeling of the Deputy City Architect when he states in para 18 of his affidavit that this is a case in which an unscrupulous builder took advantage of the Court’s order up to a point of time and after he failed in the legal process up to this Court the tenants were set up to delay the inevitable and thus in this manner the unauthorised structure, hazardous and unsafe has stood all these years. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that this is a case in which exemplary cost should be awarded.(Para 7)
In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. We further direct that no court shall entertain any suit proceeding in relation to this particular building insofar as the carrying out of the three demolition orders of the Municipal Corporation are concerned. The Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to take police assistance in executing the demolition orders. However, in order to give the occupants an opportunity to make alternative arrangements we direct that the demolition order be carried out after three months.(Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Respondent 11 raised a construction at 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, which according to the Municipal Authorities was unauthorised. The Municipal Authorities, therefore, issued a notice 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 not be demolished. In the meantime, the Municipal Authorities also posted guards at the site to ensure that there was no further unauthorised construction. Thereupon, Respondent 11, the owner of the building, filed Title Suit No. 1161 of 1977 challenging the validity of the said notice on a number of grounds and secured an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the construction work. Under the protection of the said interim order the activity of construction was carried on. Subsequently, on 30-1-1978 the Municipal Authorities issued a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 414 of the Act for demolition of the unauthorised construction. Efforts were made to serve this notice on Respondent 11 but it is alleged that he was trying to evade service and as such the notice had to be ultimately pasted at the site. 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 construction. By them the construction had progressed up to the 6th storey. Notwithstanding the same the owner continued to build above the sixth storey and once again a notice to stop work had to be given under Section 416 of the Act. On receipt of that notice an appeal was preferred to the Building Tribunal and a stay was obtained against the demolition of the 6th storey. In the meantime, the construction activity was proceeding in full swing. The construction proceeded up to the 14th storey. 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. Respondent 11 preferred appeals against both these demolition orders before the Building Tribunal. In the meantime, on 29-5-1981 the Building Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 44 of 1978-79 in relation to the 6th storey. 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. 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. Special Leave Petition No. 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. 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. 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. 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 concerned. A formal writ petition was presented two days later, wherein an interim order staying the demolition was granted. The execution of the demolition order was, therefore, suspended by the Municipal Authorities. However, that writ petition preferred by the tenants came to be dismissed on merits on 1-3-1982 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. Two days later on 3-3-1982 the writ petitions pending before another learned Single Judge with regard to the stoppage of water supply also met the same fate. 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. In the meantime, the tenants had preferred a special leave petition before this Court against the order for the demolition of the 13th floor which came to be dismissed. However, in fairness the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation gave an undertaking not to execute the demolition order in relation to the 13th floor till the disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court which was then pending. That appeal was dismissed on 7-4-1982. So also the appeal preferred by Bank of Rajasthan Limited being the occupant of the first floor of the building was also dismissed. Against the dismissal of the tenant’s appeal a special leave petition was moved before this Court in which certain interim order were passed in a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble P.N. Bhagwati and D.A. Desai, JJ. It would be proper at this state to refer to the said interim order dated 3-5-1982. Under that interim order an architect/engineer nominated 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 construction. 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 could be undertaken. He was also directed to estimate the cost of carrying out the necessary repairs and renovations. A direction was also given for restoring the water supply. The architect nominated to carry out these directions was M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited. 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 considering the architect’s report.
2. 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 conditions, namely:
“(1) 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 notice to Shri Debabrata Banerjee, City Architect, Calcutta Municipal Corporation and in consolation with him.
(2) 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 not 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 commence not later than 7-4-1983.
(3) 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 commence forthwith.
(4) 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.
(5) 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 completed latest by 31-7-1983.
(6) Prior to 7-4-1983 and before the water tank on the top of the topmost floor is dismantled for the purpose of commencing the work of demolition, the petitioners shall at their cost 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 not be less than 6000 gallons as recommended by M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited.
(7) 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 not 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 conditions on which such loans are given by Bank of Rajasthan.
(8) The petitioners appearing through their counsel 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. Petitioner 1 undertakes to this Court to make the necessary arrangements as set out in this paragraph.
(9) The petitioners and other tenants of the building including Bank of Rajasthan will not 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 compensation from the tenants or occupants of the building.
(10) The cost, 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.
(11) 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 cost, charges and expenses of M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Pvt. 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 and a statement of account showing the amounts withdrawn and expended shall be submitted by him to this Court every month.
(12) 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 not be unreasonably withheld by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or the appropriate authorities of the Corporation nor shall the consideration of the application for such sanction or approval be delayed in any manner, whatsoever,
(13) As soon as the aforesaid work set out in para 5 is completed, Shri K.K. Banerjee will submit a report to this Court in regard to the completion of the work.
(14) If the petitioners fail to commence 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 complete the same by 31.7.1983. The question as to who will be liable to bear the cost of such demolition will be decided later by this Court.”
3. Thereafter, the special leave petition was adjourned to 10-8-1983. We have reproduced all the conditions to give a comprehensive idea of the indulgence shown by the Court in regard to the building in question inasmuch as the Court appointed as architect/engineer Dr K.K. Banerjee of M/s Engineering Consultants who had been engaged by the tenants/owner of the building, so also the Court appointed their advocate as court official for carrying out certain directions. Bank of Rajasthan Limited had intervened in the said proceedings and, therefore, certain directions were given in relation to that Bank. The conditions set out in the said interim order have relevance because the two interim orders passed by this Court clearly indicate that the Court’s anxiety was to save the building if it was possible to do so consistently with the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation and the safety of not only the occupants of the building, but the neighbouring buildings and the passers-by also. Thereafter, on 26-8-1983 special leave was granted on condition that the directions given in the interim order of 28-2-1983 will have to be carried out and the appellant’s architect Dr K.K. Banerjee was directed to submit a report in respect of the progress of the work of demolition of the four topmost floors and the removal of defects and deficiencies for strengthening the building and ensuring that fire safety regulations were met. Dr Banerjee submitted an interim report on 17-11-1983 and a final report on 4-1-1984.
4. It would suffice to refer to the final report submitted by Dr K.K. Banerjee. He points out in the final report that as per the modified interim order of this court he was required to ensure (1) demolition of the topmost four floors, (2) strengthening of the existing building, (3) reconstruction of water tank and lift rooms, and (4) necessary measures for adequate fire safety. He points out that while the work of Items 1 and 3 had been completed by 31-7-1983 and the report to the effect was submitted on 4-8-1983, for the completion of the rest of the work, extension of time was obtained. He then describes the physical condition of the property, also makes a mention that M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates had failed to calculate the loads on all the columns as well as the effect of wind and seismic factors nor did they provide the calculations for foundation pressure. To put it briefly he found fault with the work undertaken by M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates which, in our opinion, does not require a detailed examination. However, on the basis of his own approach he came to the conclusion that there were certain deficiencies in the existing building which would have to be removed and that the existing work would have to be strengthened. In regard to fire safety requirements he points out that the building as it stands has many limitations, particularly in respect of creating additional space for storage of water at ground level and providing a second staircase as fire escape. He noticed that there is a need to construct a second staircase which can be done by dismantling certain portion of the floor and connecting beams at every floor level necessitating vacating of the building by the tenants from the ground floor to the 9th floor of that portion which would be needed for the construction of the staircase. He, however, points out that since this was a matter which fell outside the terms of reference of this Court’s modified order he did not deem it appropriate to consider the same. He also noticed that the petitioners were not inclined to take up any construction for the additional staircase on the plea that there are any number of tall buildings in Calcutta which were without a second staircase. He concludes his report by saying that all works stipulated in para 5 of this Court’s order of 28-2-1983 have been completed “as far as possible” except the provision in regard to the second staircase as part of the fire safety arrangement.
5. The Deputy City Architect, Gorachand Mondal has filed an affidavit dated 3-4-1990 in which he points out that even after the final report of Dr Banerjee and the work carried out by him, the building continued to be totally unsafe and insecure and was likely to collapse at any moment. According to him insofar as fire safety is concerned the building continues to remain a death trap and none of the major fire safety requirements had been provided in respect of the order of this Court. The second exit staircase has not been provided and even without that staircase the provision made by Dr Banerjee is grossly inadequate and leaves the building totally unsafe should it catch fire. He further points out that Dr Banerjee has not taken care to attend to the serious deficiencies in the foundation of the building but has merely criticised the Court-appointed engineers M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates rather than he himself strengthening the building. He also points out that notwithstanding the work carried out under the provisions of Dr Banerjee the building as it stands infringes several mandatory rules which are essential to be observed for granting sanction to the building. In para 14 of the affidavit he makes a pointed mention about the requirements of clauses 3, 4 and 5 read with clause 12 in the modified interim order of this Court dated 28-2-1983 and states that even these requirements have not been satisfied. He then deals with the final report of Dr Banerjee, points out its drawbacks and then concludes as under :
“If this unauthorised construction is allowed to stand notwithstanding these breaches, then the building will continue to stand until the disaster takes place in the nature of outbreak of fire in the building and/or collapse of the building causing harm to the lives of the persons in the building at that particular point of time, endangering the lives of the occupants of the neighbouring building and persons and passers-by in and around.”
6. That is why in para 8 of the affidavit he states that it is impossible to regularise such a building and requests the Court to be excused from agreeing to the proposal for regularisation which violates the laws and mandatory provisions made for ensuring the safety of the building. He also points out in this affidavit that the number of columns in the building have been overstressed in the range of 69.82% to 117.2%, the beams have been overstressed between 75% and 264% etc. leaving the building in a very unsatisfactory state. He betrays his agony when he says that in his view this unauthorised construction has been put up by an unscrupulous person taking advantage of the Court’s order and he has been guilty of abusing the process of the court. It is not necessary for us to mention in detail the various factors pointed out by him which go to make the building thoroughly unsafe and hazardous for human occupation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to submit that if some further time is given the existing deficiencies could be corrected. We are afraid that this is merely a plea to bide for time; having regard to the fact that several years have elapsed after the report submitted by Dr Banerjee. The tenants themselves are to blame for the obvious reason that they themselves did not permit the construction of the second exit staircase. Not only that, several other deficiencies pointed out by the Deputy City Architect in his affidavit have remained unattended over all this period of time. We, on perusal of the record are satisfied that this is a case of the owner in the first instance and thereafter the tenants abusing the process of the court with a view to delaying the demolition of the wholly unauthorised structure. We cannot countenance such violation of the building rules and requirements which continue notwithstanding the indulgence shown by this Court through the interim orders of 3-5-1982 and 28-2-1983. We share the feeling of the Deputy City Architect when he states in para 18 of his affidavit that this is a case in which an unscrupulous builder took advantage of the Court’s order up to a point of time and after he failed in the legal process up to this Court the tenants were set up to delay the inevitable and thus in this manner the unauthorised structure, hazardous and unsafe has stood all these years. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that this is a case in which exemplary cost should be awarded.
8. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. We further direct that no court shall entertain any suit proceeding in relation to this particular building insofar as the carrying out of the three demolition orders of the Municipal Corporation are concerned. The Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to take police assistance in executing the demolition orders. However, in order to give the occupants an opportunity to make alternative arrangements we direct that the demolition order be carried out after three months. As stated earlier, we have come to the conclusion that the appellants have been guilty of abusing the process of the court and it is most unfortunate that Bank of Rajasthan Limited has also been a party thereto. We, therefore, quantify the cost at Rs 1 lakh.
1. Respondent 11 raised a construction at 174, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, which according to the Municipal Authorities was unauthorised. The Municipal Authorities, therefore, issued a notice 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 not be demolished. In the meantime, the Municipal Authorities also posted guards at the site to ensure that there was no further unauthorised construction. Thereupon, Respondent 11, the owner of the building, filed Title Suit No. 1161 of 1977 challenging the validity of the said notice on a number of grounds and secured an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the construction work. Under the protection of the said interim order the activity of construction was carried on. Subsequently, on 30-1-1978 the Municipal Authorities issued a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 414 of the Act for demolition of the unauthorised construction. Efforts were made to serve this notice on Respondent 11 but it is alleged that he was trying to evade service and as such the notice had to be ultimately pasted at the site. 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 construction. By them the construction had progressed up to the 6th storey. Notwithstanding the same the owner continued to build above the sixth storey and once again a notice to stop work had to be given under Section 416 of the Act. On receipt of that notice an appeal was preferred to the Building Tribunal and a stay was obtained against the demolition of the 6th storey. In the meantime, the construction activity was proceeding in full swing. The construction proceeded up to the 14th storey. 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. Respondent 11 preferred appeals against both these demolition orders before the Building Tribunal. In the meantime, on 29-5-1981 the Building Tribunal dismissed Appeal No. 44 of 1978-79 in relation to the 6th storey. 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. 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. Special Leave Petition No. 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. 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. 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. 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 concerned. A formal writ petition was presented two days later, wherein an interim order staying the demolition was granted. The execution of the demolition order was, therefore, suspended by the Municipal Authorities. However, that writ petition preferred by the tenants came to be dismissed on merits on 1-3-1982 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. Two days later on 3-3-1982 the writ petitions pending before another learned Single Judge with regard to the stoppage of water supply also met the same fate. 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. In the meantime, the tenants had preferred a special leave petition before this Court against the order for the demolition of the 13th floor which came to be dismissed. However, in fairness the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation gave an undertaking not to execute the demolition order in relation to the 13th floor till the disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court which was then pending. That appeal was dismissed on 7-4-1982. So also the appeal preferred by Bank of Rajasthan Limited being the occupant of the first floor of the building was also dismissed. Against the dismissal of the tenant’s appeal a special leave petition was moved before this Court in which certain interim order were passed in a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble P.N. Bhagwati and D.A. Desai, JJ. It would be proper at this state to refer to the said interim order dated 3-5-1982. Under that interim order an architect/engineer nominated 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 construction. 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 could be undertaken. He was also directed to estimate the cost of carrying out the necessary repairs and renovations. A direction was also given for restoring the water supply. The architect nominated to carry out these directions was M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited. 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 considering the architect’s report.
2. 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 conditions, namely:
“(1) 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 notice to Shri Debabrata Banerjee, City Architect, Calcutta Municipal Corporation and in consolation with him.
(2) 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 not 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 commence not later than 7-4-1983.
(3) 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 commence forthwith.
(4) 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.
(5) 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 completed latest by 31-7-1983.
(6) Prior to 7-4-1983 and before the water tank on the top of the topmost floor is dismantled for the purpose of commencing the work of demolition, the petitioners shall at their cost 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 not be less than 6000 gallons as recommended by M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Private Limited.
(7) 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 not 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 conditions on which such loans are given by Bank of Rajasthan.
(8) The petitioners appearing through their counsel 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. Petitioner 1 undertakes to this Court to make the necessary arrangements as set out in this paragraph.
(9) The petitioners and other tenants of the building including Bank of Rajasthan will not 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 compensation from the tenants or occupants of the building.
(10) The cost, 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.
(11) 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 cost, charges and expenses of M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates Pvt. 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 and a statement of account showing the amounts withdrawn and expended shall be submitted by him to this Court every month.
(12) 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 not be unreasonably withheld by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or the appropriate authorities of the Corporation nor shall the consideration of the application for such sanction or approval be delayed in any manner, whatsoever,
(13) As soon as the aforesaid work set out in para 5 is completed, Shri K.K. Banerjee will submit a report to this Court in regard to the completion of the work.
(14) If the petitioners fail to commence 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 complete the same by 31.7.1983. The question as to who will be liable to bear the cost of such demolition will be decided later by this Court.”
3. Thereafter, the special leave petition was adjourned to 10-8-1983. We have reproduced all the conditions to give a comprehensive idea of the indulgence shown by the Court in regard to the building in question inasmuch as the Court appointed as architect/engineer Dr K.K. Banerjee of M/s Engineering Consultants who had been engaged by the tenants/owner of the building, so also the Court appointed their advocate as court official for carrying out certain directions. Bank of Rajasthan Limited had intervened in the said proceedings and, therefore, certain directions were given in relation to that Bank. The conditions set out in the said interim order have relevance because the two interim orders passed by this Court clearly indicate that the Court’s anxiety was to save the building if it was possible to do so consistently with the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation and the safety of not only the occupants of the building, but the neighbouring buildings and the passers-by also. Thereafter, on 26-8-1983 special leave was granted on condition that the directions given in the interim order of 28-2-1983 will have to be carried out and the appellant’s architect Dr K.K. Banerjee was directed to submit a report in respect of the progress of the work of demolition of the four topmost floors and the removal of defects and deficiencies for strengthening the building and ensuring that fire safety regulations were met. Dr Banerjee submitted an interim report on 17-11-1983 and a final report on 4-1-1984.
4. It would suffice to refer to the final report submitted by Dr K.K. Banerjee. He points out in the final report that as per the modified interim order of this court he was required to ensure (1) demolition of the topmost four floors, (2) strengthening of the existing building, (3) reconstruction of water tank and lift rooms, and (4) necessary measures for adequate fire safety. He points out that while the work of Items 1 and 3 had been completed by 31-7-1983 and the report to the effect was submitted on 4-8-1983, for the completion of the rest of the work, extension of time was obtained. He then describes the physical condition of the property, also makes a mention that M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates had failed to calculate the loads on all the columns as well as the effect of wind and seismic factors nor did they provide the calculations for foundation pressure. To put it briefly he found fault with the work undertaken by M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates which, in our opinion, does not require a detailed examination. However, on the basis of his own approach he came to the conclusion that there were certain deficiencies in the existing building which would have to be removed and that the existing work would have to be strengthened. In regard to fire safety requirements he points out that the building as it stands has many limitations, particularly in respect of creating additional space for storage of water at ground level and providing a second staircase as fire escape. He noticed that there is a need to construct a second staircase which can be done by dismantling certain portion of the floor and connecting beams at every floor level necessitating vacating of the building by the tenants from the ground floor to the 9th floor of that portion which would be needed for the construction of the staircase. He, however, points out that since this was a matter which fell outside the terms of reference of this Court’s modified order he did not deem it appropriate to consider the same. He also noticed that the petitioners were not inclined to take up any construction for the additional staircase on the plea that there are any number of tall buildings in Calcutta which were without a second staircase. He concludes his report by saying that all works stipulated in para 5 of this Court’s order of 28-2-1983 have been completed “as far as possible” except the provision in regard to the second staircase as part of the fire safety arrangement.
5. The Deputy City Architect, Gorachand Mondal has filed an affidavit dated 3-4-1990 in which he points out that even after the final report of Dr Banerjee and the work carried out by him, the building continued to be totally unsafe and insecure and was likely to collapse at any moment. According to him insofar as fire safety is concerned the building continues to remain a death trap and none of the major fire safety requirements had been provided in respect of the order of this Court. The second exit staircase has not been provided and even without that staircase the provision made by Dr Banerjee is grossly inadequate and leaves the building totally unsafe should it catch fire. He further points out that Dr Banerjee has not taken care to attend to the serious deficiencies in the foundation of the building but has merely criticised the Court-appointed engineers M/s Ghosh, Bose and Associates rather than he himself strengthening the building. He also points out that notwithstanding the work carried out under the provisions of Dr Banerjee the building as it stands infringes several mandatory rules which are essential to be observed for granting sanction to the building. In para 14 of the affidavit he makes a pointed mention about the requirements of clauses 3, 4 and 5 read with clause 12 in the modified interim order of this Court dated 28-2-1983 and states that even these requirements have not been satisfied. He then deals with the final report of Dr Banerjee, points out its drawbacks and then concludes as under :
“If this unauthorised construction is allowed to stand notwithstanding these breaches, then the building will continue to stand until the disaster takes place in the nature of outbreak of fire in the building and/or collapse of the building causing harm to the lives of the persons in the building at that particular point of time, endangering the lives of the occupants of the neighbouring building and persons and passers-by in and around.”
6. That is why in para 8 of the affidavit he states that it is impossible to regularise such a building and requests the Court to be excused from agreeing to the proposal for regularisation which violates the laws and mandatory provisions made for ensuring the safety of the building. He also points out in this affidavit that the number of columns in the building have been overstressed in the range of 69.82% to 117.2%, the beams have been overstressed between 75% and 264% etc. leaving the building in a very unsatisfactory state. He betrays his agony when he says that in his view this unauthorised construction has been put up by an unscrupulous person taking advantage of the Court’s order and he has been guilty of abusing the process of the court. It is not necessary for us to mention in detail the various factors pointed out by him which go to make the building thoroughly unsafe and hazardous for human occupation.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to submit that if some further time is given the existing deficiencies could be corrected. We are afraid that this is merely a plea to bide for time; having regard to the fact that several years have elapsed after the report submitted by Dr Banerjee. The tenants themselves are to blame for the obvious reason that they themselves did not permit the construction of the second exit staircase. Not only that, several other deficiencies pointed out by the Deputy City Architect in his affidavit have remained unattended over all this period of time. We, on perusal of the record are satisfied that this is a case of the owner in the first instance and thereafter the tenants abusing the process of the court with a view to delaying the demolition of the wholly unauthorised structure. We cannot countenance such violation of the building rules and requirements which continue notwithstanding the indulgence shown by this Court through the interim orders of 3-5-1982 and 28-2-1983. We share the feeling of the Deputy City Architect when he states in para 18 of his affidavit that this is a case in which an unscrupulous builder took advantage of the Court’s order up to a point of time and after he failed in the legal process up to this Court the tenants were set up to delay the inevitable and thus in this manner the unauthorised structure, hazardous and unsafe has stood all these years. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that this is a case in which exemplary cost should be awarded.
8. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. We further direct that no court shall entertain any suit proceeding in relation to this particular building insofar as the carrying out of the three demolition orders of the Municipal Corporation are concerned. The Municipal Corporation will be at liberty to take police assistance in executing the demolition orders. However, in order to give the occupants an opportunity to make alternative arrangements we direct that the demolition order be carried out after three months. As stated earlier, we have come to the conclusion that the appellants have been guilty of abusing the process of the court and it is most unfortunate that Bank of Rajasthan Limited has also been a party thereto. We, therefore, quantify the cost at Rs 1 lakh.
