Can't Challenge Notice Issued To Someone Else: Gujarat High Court Rejects Tenant's Plea Against Municipal Notice On Dilapidated Building

The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (November 27) rejected a plea challenging a notice issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation asking the owner/occupier of a property to audit the property and produce the structure stability report of the building as the same was in a dilapidated condition requiring urgent repairs. 

The court noted that since the notice was not issued to the petitioner–who claimed to be an interested party–but to another party, no cause of action had arisen against the petitioner. 

The court was hearing a petition challenging notice dated 24-7-2025 issued under Section 264 Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act by Surat Municipal Corporation, whereby the person referred in the notice has been directed to restructure the building after taking audit of the same and then to produce structural stability report before authority concerned.

The notice stated that building in question is in a dilapidated condition and urgent repairs is necessary, for which immediate action is required by the owner/occupier of the building. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that though notice is not issued to petitioner, he being the interested party, the petitioner maybe permitted to repair the building in question. He said that petitioner is also already to get the structural stability report and thereafter upon repairs, to be produced before the authority as referred in the notice.

Justice Mauna M Bhatt which dictating the order said,

"This court could not see any merit in the petition since notice under challenge is issued to some other party and not to the petitioner. In the opinion of this court, no cause of action has arisen against the petitioner and therefore petition is rejected". 

The counsel during the hearing submitted that he can repair the property. Meanwhile the counsel for the corporation submitted, "He has to submit a construction plan. Under the guise of repairing he may not reconstruct. Therefore he has to approach the authority. This petition is immature. He has to go before authority and he has to submit a plan". 

The court asked the petitioner about his locus with respect to the property in question to which the counsel for petitioner said that the petitioner is a "tenant in the property". 

The court thereafter orally remarked that the petitioner was not a "party to the notice" and his name was not mentioned therein. Referring to the notice, the court orally said that if the petitioner is not served with this notice then how can the court entertain the petition.

"When you are asking for the prayer, quashing and setting aside the notice, which is not issued to you, how can I entertain the petition. I could not see your name..." the court said. To this the petitioner's counsel said that he was an interested party. 

Case title: SABERABIBI MOHAMMAD AIYUB ANSARI v/s SURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.

Case no.: R/SCA/16072/2025 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 198