Emphasising that “public safety overrides tenancy rights”, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that 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.
The Court clarified that 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, and 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 Uttar Pradesh Municipalities 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, remarked the Court.
The ruling came while disposing of the petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to demolish the building owned by the petitioner/Mukteshwar Mahadev Mukteshwari Durga Dharmarth Seva Samiti, situated at Varanasi, which was in a highly dilapidated condition and poses imminent danger to passers-by as well as to persons residing in the building and its neighbourhood.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Neeraj Tiwari and Justice Garima Prashad observed that 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 August 03, 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 August 29, 2025, is directly contrary to Section 334(3) of the Act, 1959.
The Bench asserted that 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. While sub-section (5) of Section 334 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 dangerous, individual occupancy rights stand subordinated to public safety, and obstruction to demolition cannot be legally sustained, added the Bench.
The Bench went on to observe 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. 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, emphasised the Bench, while directing the respondent authorities to demolish the building in question within two weeks from today duly notifying the date and time of demolition. The Bench also ordered 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.
Appearances:
Advocate Trivikram Singh, for the Petitioner
Advocates Abhishek Kumar Yadav and Vineet Sankalp, for the Respondent
