Skip to main content

Hyderabad High Court: Tenants need no notice for demolition by civic authority

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.”

Article referred: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150226/nation-current-affairs/article/hyderabad-high-court-tenants-need-no-notice

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more