THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.711 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the
appellant; Ms. Borra Lakshmi Kanakavalli, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Housing, Municipal
Administration and Urban Development Department,
appearing for respondent No.1; Mr. S.Surender Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3; and Mr. M.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.39138 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. The related writ petition was filed by the appellant assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by respondent No.3 for demolition of 2 the scheduled premises bearing House No.1-8-552/1, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.
4. Appellant is the lessee of the scheduled premises belonging to respondent No.4. There is a lease deed dated 07.07.2017 between the two. As per clause 8 of the lease deed, the lessee is not entitled to make any alterations in the scheduled premises without the written consent of the lessor.
5. It appears that appellant had made construction in the scheduled premises for the purpose of running her restaurant business. This has led to filing of civil suit by respondent No.4 against the appellant which is stated to be pending. In the meanwhile, show cause notice was issued by the Assistant City Planner to the appellant on 28.04.2022 on the ground that she has made alteration in the scheduled premises as well as made further construction thereon without the permission of the municipal authorities. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed for demolition of the alleged 3 unauthorised construction. It was at that stage that the related writ petition came to be filed.
6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that appellant had made an application on 26.11.2016 on behalf of respondent No.4 seeking construction permission and also made the necessary payments. As the same was not rejected, it would amount to deemed permission and on the basis of such deemed permission, the construction was carried out. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submitted before the Court that nowhere it was stated that appellant had made an application and carried out construction under the provision of deemed permission. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 adverted to clause 8 of the lease deed and submitted that lessee (appellant) was not entitled to carry out any alternations in the scheduled premises, not to speak of making any construction, without the written consent of respondent No.4. He asserted before the learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 did not file any application before respondent No.2 seeking permission for construction. Appellant being the lessee cannot apply to 4 respondent No.2 for permission for making alterations, not to speak of making construction. In the course of hearing, learned Single Judge had directed learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No.2 and 3 to obtain instruction regarding any application made by and on behalf of respondent No.4 and the status as to deemed permission. Learned Standing Counsel informed the Court that the website of respondent No.2 was no longer in operation and therefore respondent No.2 could not extract any details from the website.
7. Learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that a suit for eviction is pending between the parties and also the assertion of respondent No.4 that she did not file any application for construction permission, dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no illegality in the impugned order dated 14.10.2022.
8. The appeal was moved as a lunch motion on 29.10.2022 when we directed its listing today with a status quo order.
5
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 to reconsider the rival stand of the appellant as well as respondent No.4 and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. To enable the same, order dated 14.10.2022 is set aside. Let the above exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 31.10.2022 vs