# Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1534
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-20
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3256 of 2026
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari, Mrs. Garima Prashad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukteshwar-mahadev-mukteshwari-durga-dharmarth-seva-samiti-anr-v-state-of-u-p-54175
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to snake bite. The District Magistrate, shall pass the order within a period of six weeks from the
date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1534
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Writ C No. 3256 of 2026

Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti & Anr.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether tenants, by continuing in occupation and asserting tenancy rights, can prevent or delay demolition of
a building declared dangerous under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959.

HEADNOTE
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959 - ss.331, 334 - U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Act, 2021 - s.21 - Dangerous and dilapidated building - Demolition - Tenancy rights
vis-à-vis public safety - Vacation of premises

Held: Petitioner-Samiti was the owner of a building which had become highly dilapidated and posed
imminent danger to passers-by and occupants, and a notice dated 03.08.2021 was issued under Section 331
of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959 directing demolition of the unsafe structure - On 29.08.2025, a
portion of the building collapsed causing obstruction to traffic and risk to public safety - Certain tenants
continued to occupy the remaining portion of the building and instituted civil suits seeking injunction, though
no interim protection was granted in their favour, yet their continued occupation prevented demolition,
compelling the petitioner to approach the Court seeking a direction to the authorities to demolish the building
- Once the building had been declared to be in a ruinous and dangerous condition and a demolition notice
had been issued, the occupants were under a legal obligation to vacate the premises, and their continued
occupation, despite structural danger and partial collapse, was contrary to Section 334(3) - Municipal
Commissioner fully empowered to order vacation of the building and to remove occupants with police
assistance under Section 334(4) for ensuring demolition - It is well recognised that public safety overrides
tenancy rights, and a tenant cannot insist on continuing in occupation of a structure which is unsafe and
poses risk to life - Once a building is found unfit for human habitation, municipal authorities are legally
empowered to proceed with demolition, and tenants cannot obstruct such statutory action - Tenants cannot
object to expeditious demolition where the authorities have found the building unsafe - Accordingly, the
building having been found to be in a ruinous condition and posing threat to life, demolition cannot be
delayed on account of tenancy disputes - Respondent authority directed to demolish the building within the
stipulated time with necessary police assistance. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Nil
2 All. Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1535
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959;
U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

List of Keyword
Ruinous condition; Structure declared dangerous; Unfit for human habitation; Dangerous to any person;
Imminent danger; Protection of life of individuals; Demolition of building; Statutory powers of Municipal
Commissioner; Execution of demolition; Tenanted building; Public safety overrides tenancy rights; Exigency of
demolition; Continued occupation contrary to law; Legal obligation to vacate; Obstruction to demolition not
sustainable.

CASE ARISING FROM
Notice dated 03.08.2021 issued under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Trivikram Singh
Advs For Respondents: Abhishek Kumar Yadav, C.S.C., Vineet Sankalp

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Garima Prashad, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents, and Sri Abhishek Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to
demolish the building owned by the petitioner/Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga
Dharmarth Seva Samiti, situated at Inglishialine, House No. S-21/71-A, Varanasi, which, according
to the petitioner, is in a highly dilapidated condition and poses imminent danger to passers-by as
well as to persons residing in the building and its neighborhood.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3-Nagar Nigam, Varanasi
issued a notice dated 03.08.2021 under Section 331(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act,
1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1959"), directing demolition of the unsafe structure
within seven days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representations dated 03.08.2021,
13.08.2021 and 17.08.2021 before the concerned Magistrate. It is further submitted that the
Municipal Commissioner sought a report from Police Station Sigra, which submitted a detailed
report dated 21.08.2021 confirming that the building had become dilapidated and required
demolition. Despite the aforesaid, no effective action was taken. Consequently, on 29.08.2025, a
portion of the building collapsed, disrupting traffic and posing serious risk to public safety.

4. Learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that the notice regarding the dangerous
building was issued in 2021 and that a part of the structure has already been demolished by the
petitioner. However, certain tenants continue to reside in the remaining portion, which has not been
repaired. It is further stated that one tenant has instituted Original Suit No. 2307 of 2021 against the
owner and that proceedings are still pending, which fact has allegedly been concealed by the
petitioner.

5. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
pendency of litigation has been duly disclosed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition as well
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as in the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that a Suit No. 1977 of 2021 was filed by a tenant
Rita Jaiswal, wherein interim injunction was initially declined but subsequently granted in appeal,
but the suit itself came to be dismissed in default on 17.03.2023. As on date, no interim protection
subsists in her favour. It is further submitted that tenant Vinod Kumar has instituted Suit No. 2307
of 2021 seeking permanent injunction, however, no interim relief has been granted therein. His
earlier claim of ownership before the Small Causes Court also stood withdrawn. Similarly, a third
tenant Anant Kumar filed Suit No. 2971 of 2021 seeking injunction, but he too has failed to secure
any interim protection from any competent court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that none of the tenants has obtained
any stay against demolition or dispossession from any competent court. Importantly, no
proceedings have been initiated challenging the demolition notice dated 03.08.2021. It is contended
that while the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Tenancy Act, 2021 protects tenant rights, such
protection cannot override statutory powers under Section 331 of the Act of 1959 where a structure
is found to be ruinous and dangerous to human life.

7. This Court has examined the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 so as to ensure that the right available to a tenant under the statutory scheme is clearly
protected. Chapter V of the Tenancy Act, 2021, contains provisions relating to protection of tenants
against eviction. Section 21(1) of the Tenancy Act, 2021 confers protection upon a tenant in the
manner provided in the Statute itself. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 permits the Rent Authority to
make an order of eviction where the tenanted premises requires demolition. Sub-section (2)(e) of
Section 21 reads as under :-

"21. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) """"". (2) The Rent Authority may, on an
application made to it by the landlord in such manner as may be prescribed, make an order for
eviction and recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds,
namely:-

(a) """"""."

(b) """""".

"(c) """""".."

(d) """"""..."

(e) where it is necessary for the landlord to carry out any repair or construction or
rebuilding or addition or alteration or demolition in respect of the premises or any part thereof,
which is not possible to be carried out without the premises being vacated:"

Provided that after such repair, construction, rebuilding, addition or alteration, the
tenant may be allowed to reoccupy the premises only when it has been mutually agreed to between
the landlord and the tenant and a new tenancy agreement has been submitted with the Rent
Authority:"
2 All. Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1537

Provided further that the tenant shall not be allowed to reoccupy the premises,-"

(i) in the absence of submission of such mutual tenancy agreement with the Rent
Authority; and"

(ii) in cases where the tenant has been evicted under the orders of a Rent Authority.

""""""."

""""".""

8. Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, 2021 provides for tenancy agreement. It also deals with
tenancy created before the commencement of the Tenancy Act, 2021."

9. Having examined the statutory framework, this Court finds that any tenant claiming
protection under the Tenancy Act, 2021 is at liberty to approach the competent Authority for
appropriate relief, which may thereafter pass suitable orders in accordance with law. The right
which is available to a tenant in respect of dilapidated building, however, will have to be enforced
subject to the provisions of Section 331 of the Act, 1959 which deal with a special exigency where
the tenanted building requires imminent demolition for protection of life of individuals. Sections
331(1) and 331(3) of the Act, 1959 are as under:-

331 (1) If it shall at any time appear to the Municipal Commissioner that any structure
(including under this expression any building wall, parapet, pavement, floor steps, railing, door or
window frames or shutters or roof, or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from or
resting on, any building, wall, parapet or other structure) is in a ruinous condition or likely to fall,
or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any
other structure or place in the neighborhood thereof, the Municipal Commissioner may, by written
notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure, remove or repair,
such structure or thing or do one or more of such things and to prevent all cause of danger
therefrom."

(2) """"

"(3) If it appears to the Municipal Commissioner that the danger from a structure which
is ruinous or about to fall is imminent he may, before giving notice as aforesaid or before the
period of notice expires, fence off, take down, secure or repair the said structure or take such steps
or cause such work to be executed as may be required to arrest the danger."

10. This Court further notes that Section 334 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959
expressly empowers the Municipal Commissioner to order vacation of a building or any portion
thereof where such structure is found to be in a ruinous or dangerous condition within the meaning
of Section 331. Upon issuance of such notice, every person in occupation is statutorily bound to
vacate the premises, and continued occupation is prohibited unless the notice is withdrawn. The
1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provision also authorises removal of occupants through police assistance in case of non-compliance. Sections
334 of the Act, 1959 are as under:-

334. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, the [Municipal
Commissioner] may, by notice in writing specifying the grounds therefor, order any building or any portion
thereof to be vacated forthwith or within such time as may be specified in the notice "

(a)..

(b)..

(c) if the building or part thereof is in a ruinous or dangerous condition within the meaning of
section 331.

(2) The affixing of such written notice on any part of such premises shall be deemed a sufficient
intimation to the occupiers of such building or portion thereof.

(3) On the issue of a notice under sub-section (1) every person in occupation of the building or
portion thereof to which the notice relates shall vacate such building or portion as directed in the notice and
no person shall so long as the notice is not withdrawn enter the building or portion thereof except for the
purpose of carrying out any work which he may lawfully carry out.

(4) The [Municipal Commissioner] may direct that any person who acts in contravention of subsection (3) shall be removed from such building or part thereof by any police officer.

(5) The [Municipal Commissioner] shall, on the application of nay person who has vacated any
premises in pursuance of a notice under sub-section (1), reinstate such person in the premises on the
withdrawal of such notice, unless it is in his opinion impracticable to restore substantially the same terms of
occupation by reason of any structural alteration or demolition.

(6) The [Municipal Commissioner] may direct the removal from the said premises by any police
officer of any person who obstructs him in any action taken under sub-section (5) and may also use such
force as is reasonably necessary to affect entry in the said premises.

11. In the present case, once the building of Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth
Seva Samiti has been officially declared dangerous and a demolition notice dated 03.08.2021 has already
been issued, the occupants are under a legal obligation to vacate the premises. Their continued occupation,
despite clear findings of structural danger and partial collapse of the building on 29.08.2025, is directly
contrary to Section 334(3). The Municipal Commissioner is, therefore, fully empowered under Section
334(4) to seek police assistance for removal of occupants and to ensure execution of demolition.

12. While sub-section (5) preserves limited reinstatement rights upon withdrawal of notice,
such provision has no application where demolition becomes inevitable due to safety concerns.
Accordingly, the statutory scheme makes it abundantly clear that once a building is declared
2 All. Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1539
dangerous, individual occupancy rights stand subordinated to public safety, and obstruction
to demolition cannot be legally sustained.

13. This Court also takes note of the settled legal position that public safety overrides
tenancy rights. A tenant"s right to occupy premises under the U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 cannot be invoked to compel continued residence in a
structure declared dangerous, nor can such right be used to expose occupants or the public
to risk of life. Once a building is found unfit for human habitation, municipal authorities
are legally empowered to proceed with demolition, and tenants cannot obstruct such
statutory action.

14. It is equally well recognised that landlords are entitled to seek eviction where
premises become unsafe for occupation. Conversely, tenants possess the right to demand
maintenance of the property in habitable condition, and in case of neglect, may undertake
necessary repairs and seek reimbursement in accordance with law.

15. However, none of these private rights can prevail over statutory duties of the
Nagar Nigam to remove dangerous structures. That said, procedural fairness requires that
occupants be afforded a reasonable opportunity to remove their personal belongings prior
to demolition, unless emergent circumstances warrant immediate action.

16. It is held that the rights of the tenants in such an exigency will have to be dealt
with under the Tenancy Act, 2021. The tenants, however, will not be entitled to object to
the expeditious demolition of the tenanted building, particularly when the authorities have
inspected the said premises and found the requirement of its demolition as imperative. The
applicable scheme under the Act, 1959 for protection of life of individuals on account of
building being dilapidated and posing threat to life of individuals will have to be given
primacy over the protection of tenancy rights of individual applicants."

17. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the building in
question is in a ruinous condition and deserves to be demolished without waiting for the
dispute with the tenants to be resolved. Whatever rights they may be having under the
provisions of Tenancy Act will always be available to them and the same cannot be held to
be a ground to further delay the demolition of the building in question.

18. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 is directed to demolish the building in question
within two weeks from today duly notifying the date and time of demolition. Respondent
No.4 is directed to ensure that necessary police force is provided during the time of
demolition to ensure safety, security as well as maintenance of law and order. The
respondent authority may recover the costs so incurred in demolition of the building from
the petitioner as per law.

19. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition is allowed.
1540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1540
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ C No. 4232 of 2024

Mushtaq Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(A). Whether the State Government was bound by Arbitration Committee' report as an award and to question
it, it could have applied only under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not otherwise.
(B). Whether Secretary who represented State Government could have recalled his earlier order accepting the
report/ recommendation of Arbitration Committee without there being any averment or recitals coming in the
order impugned that earlier order was obtained by fraud and/or misrepresentation.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226; The Arbitration and Conciliation and Act, 1996-
Section 34- Authority is not vested with power to recall its order for the sake of recall only. The
authority is hide bound in law to record reasons and justify its action for recalling order- If an
order does not suffer from any misrepresentation or fraud or an order in not bad for want of
authority of law, it is to be taken as genuine order passed after due application of mind and
hence such order cannot be permitted to be recalled.

While this court remanded the matter, it did not set aside the order of under Secretary dated
16th March, 2017 accepting the report/recommendation of three member arbitration committee.
It recommend the matter for hearing petitioner as the order dated 11th July, 2017 recalling the
order 30th June, 2017 was being set aside- There is no whisper of misrepresentation or fraud in
getting order 30th June, 2017 passed, rather the findings are that recommendation of
arbitration committee are flawed one. Secretary tried to sit over and above the
recommendations of the Arbitration Committee which was earlier accepted by the State
Government to test whether it was a mere recommendation or it was a complete award under
order passed by Arbitration Committee. This remand does not empower the authority to travel
beyond findings returned to a different conclusion than what has been returned by Arbitration
Committee. Thus without challenging the matter under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation
and Act, 1996, the government is bound to accept recommendation of the arbitration committee.

Order of recall does not pass the test of principles upon which a recall can be justified qua
administration or quasi judicial action.

Held- Findings returned on the basis of documents available in 2016 cannot be disturbed on the basis of
some new report obtained after 8 years. This was certainly beyond scope of enquiry by the State to dilute the
findings arrived at in the arbitration proceedings. The order of recall even on merits is bad. Thus order of
recall cannot be sustained in law-Petition allowed. (E-15)