HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2113 of 2010
Date: April 23, 2014
Between:
K. Lakshmi … Petitioner And
1. The Municipal Corporation of Warangal, rep. by its Commissioner, Warangal & another.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.2113 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the first respondent.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is owner of the premises bearing No.11-25-128 situated at Warangal. The said building consists of three floors i.e., cellar portion, ground floor and first floor. There are four shutters in the cellar portion and one of the shutters was leased out to the petitioner to run a computer institution in the name of ‘Millennium Internet Centre’. That computer centre was sold to the petitioner in July 2006. The petitioner has been running the Internet Centre since then. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to evict her from the said place, the 2nd respondent prevailed upon the first respondent to issue the impugned notice. The 2nd respondent also filed O.S.No.92 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, seeking recovery of possession and the said suit was dismissed. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.1214 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from disconnecting the power supply to the said premises. Thus, admittedly there are civil disputes pending between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
3. So far as the impugned order is concerned, it was passed on 11.01.2010 pursuant to a notice issued under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) on 13.08.2009. The notice reads that when the petitioner did not comply with the notice dated 13.08.2009 issued under Section 636 of the Act, the shop was sealed and the petitioner requested the Commissioner by the letter dated 31.08.2009 seeking time to shift the premises. Since the petitioner did not shift the premises, final notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.01.2010.
4. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that before issuing notice under Section 636 of the Act, no notice was issued to the petitioner and the first respondent was relying on a notice alleged to have been issued to the 2nd respondent. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that prior to the notice dated 11.01.2010 the petitioner was issued a notice on 27.08.2010 and in the circumstances, the principles of natural justice have not been violated. He also submits that the area where the petitioner is running the business is earmarked for parking and this Court time and again directed the first respondent to restore the parking places in the cellars of the buildings.
5. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner and the alleged notice was issued to the 2nd respondent only. As per the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner the letter dated 31.08.2009 was also submitted by the 2nd respondent only but not by the petitioner. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises who is running an Internet Centre which was originally leased out by the 2nd respondent.
6. In the circumstances, the final order dated 11.01.2010 is set aside giving liberty to the first respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent under Section 452 of the Act and receive explanations from them and after considering the same, pass appropriate orders and take action in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 23, 2014 BSB
4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.2113 of 2010
Date: April 23, 2014
BSB