seven wards. The survey was confined mainly to buildings used for resideJ!tial purposes. That was not due to the absence of likelihood of human loss, suffering and deprivation of accommodation occurring in non-residential premises, but presumably be· cause the need for such a survey of residential premises was found to be of a more urgent character. The survey revealed that there were within the city 36,000 residential buildings, of which 17,490 were built prior to 1905. The survey showed that residential buildings fell into six categories, namely, 7 .48 % being buildings in steel or R.C.C. frame, 1.58 % with external masonry walls and steel or R.C.C. frame, 33% with timber frames, 42% with external masonry walls and internal timber frames, 1 % with masonry walls and jackarch floors and 15 % temporary tin sheds. The report further revealed that of the said 17,490 buildings, (a) 5,081 of them had a future life of five years only, (b) 3,549 a future life of six to ten years, ( c) 3,286 a future life of eleven to fifteen years, (d) 3,583 a future life of sixteen to twenty-five years, (e) 1,716 a future life of more than twenty-six years, and (f) 275 in a sound condition. Therefore, by 1969 when the impugned legislation was undertaken, buildings in (a), (b) and (c) and partly in ( d) classes had already outlived the period of their survival. The total number of families living in buildings which imminently required substantial repairs, if they were to survive, came to 1,04,270, 80%of whom were occupying one room tenements.
