directed respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the representation of the appellants. In pursuance of the same, the matter was referred to the Executive Engineer, Division XI to offer opinion in respect of structural stability. The Executive Engineer has opined that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and it is very dangerous to the occupiers. From the impugned judgment it is found that though there was exchange of notices between the appellants and 3rd respondent, the landlady never insisted for hike in payment of rent. It is found that the landlady has no intention to evict the appellants and it is also found that based on the material available in the year 2010 itself, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 17.02.2010 under Section 459 of the HMC Act against the owners/occupants of the premises informing that the building in question is in dilapidated condition. Further after obtaining opinion from the Engineering Department once again 1st respondent issued notice under Section 459 of the HMC Act. Pursuant to the orders in the writ petition, another opinion was obtained and it was also to the same effect. The objections of the appellants were also considered by respondents 1 and 2. The Court below also gave clear finding that the building in question is in dilapidated condition. The Court below elaborately considered the issue and found that the appellants have been given proper and ample opportunity and that based on the technical reports of the Engineers, respondents 1 and 2 have initiated action for demolition of the building in question. When the opinion of technical expert is that building in question is in dilapidated condition there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In fact, respondents 1 and 2 relied on the same and Court below also believed the same.
