occupiers to comply with the notices issued, failing which, appropriate legal action would be taken. Yet, when the visit was carried out on 21st August, 2014 and for taking measurements, it was discovered that the petitioners, instead of complying with the notices and the warning, continued to occupy the building. The inspection of 19th May, 2015 revealed that the structure was still occupied. Therefore, on 22nd May, 2015, the final call was issued. The owners/tenants failed to carry out any structural audit. No structural audit report was ever submitted in terms of Section 353-B of the MMC Act. The structural audit is to be carried out mandatorily so as to certify the stability of the structure. On failure to carry out such audit, but thereafter when the notices are issued, rushing to the structural engineers is a routine feature which we have been witnessing from the month of June, 2019. This reason we term it as such is because while challenging the notices issued under Section 354 of the MMC Act, some grounds of challenge have to be invented. At that stage, the occupiers of the building rush to a structural engineer and try to obtain a certificate or a report or a recommendation from him or her to the effect that the structure can be saved by carrying out repairs. On noticing that such reports have been obtained by the occupants, the owners, in turn, rush to another structural engineer, who makes a directly contrary recommendation. He
