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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more