The Hyderabad High Court has made it clear that serving a notice on a house owner is enough and there was no provision in the law which mandates notice to tenants in case dilapidated buildings are to be demolished.
The Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation had served a notice on a building owner, directing him to demolish his house within seven days on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition.
However, Gottumukkala Peddi Nagaraju, a tenant, moved the High Court stating that he has been residing in the house for 15 years and the notice was in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
He further alleged that with an intention to vacate him from the house the owner, in collusion with the corporation, decided to demolish the house. On February 6, Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy, while ordering status quo, directed the corporation to produce the inspection report to ascertain on what basis the notice was served.
The corporation produced the copy of the report prepared by a three-member engineers team which after the inspection of building, opined that it was in a dilapidated condition and the same is not suitable for living.
After perusing the report, the judge ruled that the proceedings of the engineers clearly showed that the building was not fit for living and that neither the court nor the petitioner can substitute the said opinion of the experts.
Dismissing the plea, the judge said no owner will be willing to demolish his house which is in a good condition for the sake of tenants. The judge said, “If the petitioner is allowed to continue in the building, it will endanger his life and hence this court cannot continue the interim order and allow the petitioner to reside on the premises.
It is in the interest of the petitioner that he vacate the building so that the same can be demolished. This court cannot interfere in the matters of this nature.”
The Visakhapatnam Greater Municipal Corporation had served a notice on a building owner, directing him to demolish his house within seven days on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition.
However, Gottumukkala Peddi Nagaraju, a tenant, moved the High Court stating that he has been residing in the house for 15 years and the notice was in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
He further alleged that with an intention to vacate him from the house the owner, in collusion with the corporation, decided to demolish the house. On February 6, Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy, while ordering status quo, directed the corporation to produce the inspection report to ascertain on what basis the notice was served.
The corporation produced the copy of the report prepared by a three-member engineers team which after the inspection of building, opined that it was in a dilapidated condition and the same is not suitable for living.
After perusing the report, the judge ruled that the proceedings of the engineers clearly showed that the building was not fit for living and that neither the court nor the petitioner can substitute the said opinion of the experts.
Dismissing the plea, the judge said no owner will be willing to demolish his house which is in a good condition for the sake of tenants. The judge said, “If the petitioner is allowed to continue in the building, it will endanger his life and hence this court cannot continue the interim order and allow the petitioner to reside on the premises.
It is in the interest of the petitioner that he vacate the building so that the same can be demolished. This court cannot interfere in the matters of this nature.”
Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150226/nation-current-affairs/article/hyderabad-high-court-tenants-need-no-notice
Comments
Post a Comment