Gautam A. Ankhad, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The Petitioners are tenants of a building called Agnela Villa located at the address mentioned in the cause title. The present Petition challenges the communications dated 21st August 2025, 4th September 2025 and 19th September 2025 issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the said building has been classified as a C-1 structure and the Petitioners have been directed under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to vacate the premises for demolition of the structure.

3. Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned notices were issued disregarding two structural audit reports dated 8th August 2023 and 28th April 2025, both of which categorized the building as a C-2B structure requiring repairs and not demolition. The tenants were desirous of undertaking the necessary repairs and had repeatedly called upon landlords - Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to carry out the same. As no steps were taken, the Petitioners themselves undertook the repair work.

4. On 29th July 2025, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioners that, owing to alleged inconsistencies in the structural audit reports, the matter had been referred to the Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC"). On 16th August 2025, the Petitioners by their advocates letter, informed Respondent No.2 that repair work had already commenced. On 21st August 2025, Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioners that the TAC had classified the building as a C-1 structure and directed immediate evacuation. Although the Petitioners repeatedly sought a copy of the TAC report, the same was not furnished to them and the impugned communications were issued. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approached this Court. On 11th June, 2026, Respondent No.2 disconnected the water supply and threatened to disconnect electricity of the said building.

5. Ms. Smita Tondwalkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, tenders a copy of the TAC report dated 12th August 2025. The same is taken on record and marked ‘X-1’ for identification. The TAC report recommends that the building be classified as a C-1 structure requiring immediate demolition.

6. To counter the same, Mr. Kanade tenders an affidavit dated 12th June 2026 along with photographs depicting the present condition of the building. The affidavit records that the repair work has been completed, the structure is presently habitable and is no longer in the condition alleged by Respondent No.2. The affidavit, consisting of nine pages along with the annexed photographs, is taken on record and marked ‘X-2’ for identification.

7. At the outset, it is difficult to appreciate why the TAC report, which formed the very basis of the impugned action, was withheld from the Petitioners despite their repeated requests. Denial of the report deprived the Petitioners of an effective opportunity to respond to the findings on which the drastic action under Section 354 was founded.

8. Be that as it may, the subsequent developments as demonstrated from the photographs annexed to the affidavit dated 12th June 2026 establishes that the Petitioners have completed the repair work. The building presently stands in a substantially different condition from the one considered by the TAC in August 2025 and the photographs which are part of ‘X-1’. The impugned communications and the notice under Section 354 proceeded on the premise that the building was in a dangerous and ruinous condition warranting immediate demolition. That factual foundation no longer survives and there does not appear to be any imminent danger to life or property. Hence, the impugned communications, founded on a factual situation which has undergone a material change, cannot be sustained.

9. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus:

                   ‘(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari, a writ in nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and quash and/or set aside the impugned communications dated 21st August 2025, 4th September 2025 and 19th September 2025 (Exhibits ‘L’, ‘M’, and ‘N’).’

10. Respondent No.2 shall not threaten to disconnect water supply or electricity on the basis of the impugned communications and we direct that the water supply and the electricity connection, if disconnected, shall be reconnected by the Corporation, forthwith. We clarify that if Respondent No.2 is of the view that the present condition of the building warrants action under the statute, it is always open to it to undertake a fresh inspection and follow the due procedure in accordance with law.

11. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) above.