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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

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