HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2014 DATED:8.10.2014 Between:
M/s. Paradise Watch House Shop at 1-6-58, M.G. Road Secunderabad Rep. by its Partner Sri Sunil Lalchandani … Appellant And The Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank Bund Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dt.8.9.2014.
2. In the writ petition, the appellant – writ petitioner prayed for the following relief:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to (a) direct the official respondents to issue notice to the petitioner for the demolition of premises at 1-6-58, M.G. Road, Secunderabad, as contemplated under Section 456, 459 GHMC Act & relevant Building Bye-Law Rules before passing any orders for demolition under Section 456 of the GHMC Act; or (b) to pass any such orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The appellant –writ petitioner is a tenant whereas the third respondent is the landlady. On the complaint of building in question being dilapidated, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) wanted to demolish the same, but the tenant complained that no notice was served upon it before undertaking demolition and with the apprehension of demolition, the writ petition was filed.
4. It appears from Section 456 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) that if any portion of a building is in occupation of tenant or by any other third party, he or she must get notice before such demolition order is passed or demolition is undertaken. This statutory protection is given to the tenant/occupant aiming at to give reasonable time to vacate the building and settle elsewhere, before it is demolished.
5. When the writ petition was filed, no notice was served, but during the pendency of the writ petition not only notice was served, but also hearing was given to the appellant and all steps were taken by both the parties. The fact remains that the very purpose of notice has been sub-served. So, when the grievance of non-service of notice has been redressed, the Court cannot extend the scope of enquiry.
6. It is contended by Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant, that first floor of the building has already been demolished and the ground floor is yet to be demolished. According to him this portion does not warrant immediate demolition as it is not in such a bad condition. However, this contention has been denied and disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. We are of the view that this is a subsequent development took place during the pendency of the writ petition and the grievance at the time of filing of the writ petition was non-service of notice.
7. We, therefore, close this appeal without proceeding further having noted the subsequent development that requires fresh enquiry by an appropriate authority. We grant liberty to the appellant to take steps in accordance with law as may be advised against the decision of the demolition of the ground floor of the building. For this purpose, we direct the respondent authorities to stay their hands for ten (10) days from date. It is at the risk and peril of the appellant in the event any causality take place or any damage is done. The GHMC or, for that matter, the landlady will not be liable and responsible. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC that possession of the building has been taken by the GHMC. As possession is taken by GHMC, it will be kept vacant and no one should be allowed to enter and use the same.
8. The writ appeal is accordingly closed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.
There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 8.10.2014 SANJAY KUMAR, J bnr