DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The petitioner assails a notice dated December 23, 2017 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on the ground that, such notice is vague.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the impugned notice requires the owner/occupier of Premises No. 11, Abanindra Nath Thakur Sarani, Kolkata - 700017 to secure the building after demolishing the dangerous portion and repair the repairable portion. He submits that, similar notices were issued on two earlier occasions and both the occasions, the Court intervened and quashed the same as such notices were vague. In the last of the two such notices, an appeal was carried, which was also dismissed. He submits that, therefore, the impugned notice must be held to be vague and should also be quashed. The only difference between the earlier two notices and the present impugned notice is that, the earlier two notices were issued to the owner and this time in addition to the owner the Corporation issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. He submits that, the petitioner is a tenant of a portion of the premises concerned. He submits that the premises consist of two buildings. The petitioner is the tenant of a portion of the rear building. The petitioner is willing to repair the entirety of the rear building at his own cost and expenses without claiming any equity, right, title and interest for such repair. He also submits that, the petitioner is willing to abide by all legitimate directions that may be issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation from time to time regarding such repair, if the Court allows the petitioner to undertake the repair.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 6 submits that, the respondent no. 6 is the owner of the premises concerned. The respondent no. 6 has filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner has no right to occupy any portion of the premises concerned. The respondent no. 6 is opposing any request for repair to be undertaken at the behest of the petitioner. He submits that, the building is unrepairable. It would be in the interest of public safety that, the building is demolished as early as possible, as the conditions of the building is such that, it may fall down at any time.;