Public Safety Overrides Tenancy Rights; Tenants Can’t Obstruct Municipal Authorities From Demolishing Building Declared Dangerous: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a Petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the building owned by the petitioner, which, according to him, was in a highly dilapidated condition and possessed imminent danger to passers-by as well as to persons residing in the building and its neighbourhood.

The Division Bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Garima Prashad held, “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.”

Advocate Trivikram Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Abhishek Kumar Yadav represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the petitioner was that the respondent Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, issued a notice under Section 331(1)(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1959, directing demolition of the unsafe structure within seven days. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representations before the concerned Magistrate. It was further submitted that the Municipal Commissioner sought a report from Police Station Sigra, which submitted a detailed report confirming that the building had become dilapidated and required demolition, but no effective action was taken. Consequently, a portion of the building collapsed, disrupting traffic and posing a serious risk to public safety.

Arguments

It was the case of the respondent that one tenant had instituted an Original Suit against the owner, and the proceedings were still pending.

It was the case of the petitioner that none of the tenants had obtained any stay against demolition or dispossession from any competent court, and no proceedings were initiated challenging the demolition notice.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the Bench stated that a 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”, it added.

The Bench explained 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 Bench further stated that the provision also authorises the removal of occupants through police assistance in case of non-compliance.

The Bench thus held, “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.”

The Bench stated that landlords are entitled to seek eviction where premises become unsafe for occupation and 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. “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”, it added.

Thus, holding that the building in question was in a ruinous condition and deserved to be demolished without waiting for the dispute with the tenants to be resolved, the Bench allowed the writ petition.

“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”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti v. State of U.P. (Case No.: WRIT – C No. - 3256 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Trivikram Singh

Respondent: Advocate Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Chief Standing Counsel Vineet Sankalp

Click here to read/download Order