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

Most viewed this month

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Consumer forum can use forensic examination to settle disputes - NCDRC

A consumer forum has to follow a summary procedure for the adjudication of complaints. But at times, the authenticity and credibility of the evidence is challenged as fabricated. In such a situation, sometimes, a consumer forum refuses to weigh a complaint on the grounds that it involves adjudication of complicated facts. It, instead, asks the parties to approach the regular civil court. This is incorrect. In such a case, a consumer forum isn't helpless; it can obtain evidence by referring the documents for examination by experts. This significant ruling was given by a National Commission bench of judges K S Chaudhari and Suresh Chandra in revision petition number 2008 of 2012 on February 11, 2012 (The New India Assurance Co Ltd v/s Sree Sree Madan Mohan Rice Mill). The rice mill claimed a fire had broken out at its office-cum-manufacturing unit. An insurance claim was lodged for the loss. The insurance company didn't settle the claim. Aggrieved, the mill filed a complaint ...

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...