Telangana High Court
Huda Saroornagar Commercial Complex vs The State Of Telangana on 16 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 18594 of 2024
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 to 4, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, and with the consent of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is the Society representing the lessees of shops allotted by the 5th respondent in the complex known as HUDA, Saroornagar Commercial Complex situated at Kothapet, Hyderabad; and that the 4th respondent had issued notice under Section 456 of the GHMC Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955'), to all the lessees individually, on 23.05.2024, basing on a 2 representation given by the 5th respondent, calling upon the lessees of the petitioner-Association to vacate the shops in their occupation within (07) days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, the occupants were informed that they would be held liable for any sort of danger/instances or any other problem created in the course of action taken to remove the dilapidated structure.
3. Petitioner further contends that at an earlier point of time when the respondents-authorities sought to evict the lessees from the aforesaid leased premises, it had approached the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction and filed suits vide O.S.Nos.434 & 635 of 2008 and 636 of 2009; that the said suits were dismissed/disposed of on the ground that the petitioner-association has no locus standi to represent the individual lessees; and that it had preferred appeals thereagainst and the said appeals are pending consideration.
4. Petitioner further contends that notwithstanding the pendency of the appeals, the 5th respondent through the 4th 3 respondent had got the impugned notice issued seeking to demolish the building and called upon the members of the petitioner-association to vacate the subject shops, which action it is contended to be as highly illegal and arbitrary, more particularly during the pendency of the appeals.
5. Petitioner further contends that if the respondents- authorities are permitted to go ahead with the course of action sought to be resorted, the appeals filed by the petitioner would become futile and redundant.
6. Per contra, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that, the subject building has been certified as a dilapidated building by the Department of Civil Engineering, Osmania University, vide proceedings, dt.26.03.2014.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 further submits that even after 10 years from the Department of Civil Engineering certifying that the subject building having become dilapidated, the members of the 4 petitioner-association are continuing to occupy the same, endangering the lives of occupants of the said building, and as such the authorities have called upon the lessees of the subject premises to vacate the same.
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent submits that the residents/lessees have not been paying rents to the HUDA since 30.04.2008 i.e., from the date on which the respondents-authorities directed the occupants/lessees of the shops to vacate the shops in their occupation, on completion of lease agreement, which was originally entered into for a period of three years.
9. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 5th respondent further submits that the lessees, who are in occupation of the shops, by filing injunction suits have restrained the authorities from taking action for evicting the lessees from the complex and continued to be in occupation while being in default of payment of rents. 5
10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 5th respondent further submits that the lessees, who are occupants of the shops in the subject complex, have not paid the rents pending civil proceedings, and thus, became willful defaulters in payment of rents, conferring power on the authority to seek eviction of the lessees/occupants from the subject shops/premises.
11. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
12. Though the petitioner claims of it representing the occupants of the complex belonging to the 4th respondent as lessees, no document is placed on record to show that all the lessees have come together to form an association to represent their common cause.
13. Further, it is also to be seen that the 5th respondent- authority having issued a notice of eviction on 22.01.2008, on expiry of the lease term, the petitioner and two others have filed separate suits questioning the action of the 6 respondents-authorities in seeking for eviction from the subject premises.
14. Petitioner having suffered an adverse order in the said suits, though claims to have filed appeals thereagainst, has not placed before this Court any documents to show the pendency of the said appeals.
15. Further, the petitioner, who claims to be representing the occupants of the shops, has not shown to this Court that the lessees paying rents during the period of pendency of civil proceedings initiated by them either to the respondents or by depositing the same before the concerned Court.
16. Though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that till 2013 rents were paid and an application was made into the Court seeking permission to deposit the rents, but no orders have been passed therein, the lessees of the petitioner-association continued to enjoy the property 7 without paying rents till the dismissal/disposal of the suits in the year 2018.
17. Further, it is also to be noted that though the petitioner claims to have filed appeals, not only the details of the said appeals are not placed before this Court, but it is also not shown to this Court of the petitioner taking any steps for depositing the rents at least in the appeal proceedings.
18. It is on account of the petitioner's continuous default in payment of rents, the 5th respondent did not undertake any repairs or development work to the subject building, which resulted in the subject building becoming dilapidated as certified by the Department of Civil Engineering, Osmania University vide proceedings, dt.26.03.2014.
19. Once an expert in the field had certified the subject building having become dilapidated, it is not in domain of this Court to certify as to whether the said building can be 8 continued to be occupied. Further, it is not for the Court to sit in judgment over the said decision inasmuch as this Court is not an expert in the subject domain.
20. It is further to be noted that on the Department of Civil Engineering, Osmania University, having certified the subject building having become dilapidated, and the respondents-authorities having initiated proceedings under Section 459 of the Act, 1955, dt.03.07.2018, and the petitioners/occupants of the subject building remaining silentafter having initiated action there against by filing writ Petitions vide W.P. Nos.9969 of 2009 and 25751 of 2018, which were disposed of directing the respondents- authorities to follow due process of law, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents-authorities cannot be called as either vitiated or without any authority of law.
21. Further it is also to be noted that since, the subject premises being a public premises, the authorities are 9 required to take further action in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
22. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
23. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 16th July, 2024.
gra