WP/13893/2006 of Chandupatla Gurumurthy, Vs Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep., by on 27 December 2006

ORDER:

This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 7.7.2006 andstatus quo was granted for a limited period and the said limited statusquo order was extended from time to time.

2. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring theaction of the 1[st] respondent-Corporation contained in NoticeNo.2992/TP/Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad/SD/2005, dated24.6.2006 calling upon the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premisesbearing No.3-4-235, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad, is arbitrary andwithout jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to forbearfrom dispossessing the petitioner from the ground floor portion of thesaid premises except in accordance with law and pass such othersuitable orders.

3. The writ petitioner states that he is a tenant of premises bearingNo.3-4-235, Mahankali Street, Secunderabad, insofar as ground flooris concerned in respect of 840 square feet (approximately) and he hasbeen carrying on business in the said demised premises in the name and style of ‘Chandupatla Prakash and Chandupatla Gurumurthy’(cloth business). It is also stated that the petitioner was a tenant of theold structure, which was demolished and the present building isconstructed. Several other factual details are narrated and specificstand is taken that in order to get the petitioner evicted in an indirectmanner, the landlord-2[nd] respondent herein got issued notice ofdemolition through the 1[st] respondent-Corporation to the effect that theconstruction of the present building is in deviation to the sanctionedplan and assailing the said notice, the petitioner filed OS No.825 of1999 on the file of XVIII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional RentController, Secunderabad for an injunction and the said suit wasopposed by the landlord and also the Municipal Corporation ofHyderabad on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi tochallenge the notice of demolition and the said contention wasaccepted and the said suit in OS No.825 of 1999 was dismissed andthe judgment and decree made in OS No.825 of 1999 was confirmedin appeal in AS No.93 of 2003 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge,City Civil Court, Secunderabad and also by this Court in SecondAppeal No.1357 of 2004, dated 20.9.2005. It is also stated that the 1[st]respondent issued impugned notice dated 24.6.2006 calling upon thepetitioner to vacate the premises, which was constructed in deviationof the sanctioned plan, within seven days, and on 30.6.2006, it isstated that the petitioner had submitted a representation protesting thesaid notice and requested the Corporation not to disturb hispossession. Several other factual details are narrated in paragraphs 3and 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

4. Counter affidavits are filed by the 1[st] respondent and 2[nd]respondent.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner (CD),

Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, it is stated that the 1[st]respondent-Corporation is not aware of the terms and conditions of thelease between the 2[nd] respondent and the petitioner, and the 1[st]respondent is not concerned with the same. The 1[st] respondent-Corporation is concerned only with the extent of granting buildingpermission and see that the building constructed is in accordance withthe sanctioned plan. If the parties made constructions in deviation ofthe sanctioned plan, the 1[st] respondent-Corporation is duty bound toremove such deviations and regulate the constructions as per theprovisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and theBuilding Bye-Laws. It is also stated that the 1[st] respondent-Corporation issued required statutory notice and the filing of the suitOS No.852 of1999 and the other judicial proceedings also had beenreferred to. Specific stand is taken that the 1[st] respondent issued theimpugned notice in discharge of its obligations under the provisions ofHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

6. The 2[nd] respondent filed counter affidavit denying several of theaverments. Specific stand is taken that the petitioner is wantonlydeclaring himself as tenant though he is an encroacher as held by thisCourt in Second Appeal No.1357 of 2004 and therefore claiminghimself as tenant is only to mislead the Court and the petitioner has nosubsisting right over the property. Several other factual details arenarrated in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd]respondent.

7. In the light of the judicial proceedings already referred to supra,the writ petitioner has no right to maintain this Writ Petition. The 1[st]respondent-Corporation issued notice only for the purpose of removing the deviations from the sanctioned plan. It is needless to say that the1[st] respondent-Corporation is acting in discharge of its statutory dutiesand obligations contemplated by Hyderabad Municipal CorporationAct, 1955. In the light of the judicial proceedings stated supra, thepetitioner cannot take advantage of the wording in the impugnednotice and cannot challenge the same especially having beenunsuccessful in the prior judicial proceedings upto the stage of theSecond Appeal. Even if the explanation or representation submittedby the petitioner to be taken into consideration, nothing fruitful wouldturn out and the stand taken by the petitioner is not bona fide. Hence,liberty is given to the 1[st] respondent-Corporation to further proceedwith in accordance with law if any deviations are there to thesanctioned plan.

8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed withcosts.

----------------------------

27.12.2006

SSR

LR COPY TO BE MARKED: YES/NO.