Telangana High Court
Shaik Rahman vs The State Of Telangana on 30 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 19499 of 2023
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3, and perused the record.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are the occupants of shops belonging to the respondent-Municipality, which is popularly known as IDSMT Vegetable shopping Complex situated at Shivaji Chowk, Adilabad; and that the respondents-authorities have issued notice, dt.11.07.2023, whereby it is stated that the authorities have caused inspection of the subject shops/building on 31.05.2023 and found the shops to be in dilapidated condition and structurally unfit for being occupied, and thus called upon 2 the petitioners to vacate the shops within (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notice
3. Petitioners further contend that the subject shops are very much fit and strong, and require no repairs; and that the respondents-authorities without obtaining any Structural Stability Certificate from the competent authority are seeking to evict them from the subject shops in order to give it to others on higher rent.
4. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the respondents-authorities without issuing any notice are taking steps to evict them from their respective shops, which action it is contended to be highly illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent is filed. By the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the shops bearing No.24, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31/1 were given on lease to one Mahaveer Jain, Sk.Jamal, Abdul Khaqum, Ganganna, B.Gangamma, and Syed Mazer Ali, respectively; 3 that except the petitioners No.2, 3 & 6, the petitioners No.1, 4 & 5 are not the lessees of the subject shops belonging to the respondent-Municipality and are in illegal occupation of the subject shops; that the respondents- authorities have issued eviction notices to the lessees including the petitioners No.2, 3 & 6, informing them that the shops are in dilapidated condition and structurally unfit for being occupied; and thus, directed the petitioners to vacate the subject shops in their occupation, immediately.
6. By the counter affidavit it is further stated that the subject shops were allotted on lease basis to the lessees; that the said lease period had expired long back; and that the lessees are continuing to occupy the same unauthorizedly without any extension of lease term.
7. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the District R & B Officer (Executive Engineer), R & B Adilabad, had inspected the subject shops on 31.05.2023 4 and found that the shops are in dilapidated condition, structurally unfit and unsound.
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that as there is no proposal for grant of further lease of the subject shops in favour of anybody, and as, the structure is not habitable, the respondents- authorities have issued notice, dt.11.07.2023, directing the lessees including petitioners No.2, 3 & 6 to vacate from the subject premises.
9. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.
10. Though the petitioners claim to be in occupation of the subject shops, it is to be seen that except petitioners, No.2, 3 & 6, who are shown as lessees in respect of shop Nos.26, 27 and 31/1, the other petitioners are in no way concerned with the subject shops being claimed by them even as lessees.
5
11. Further, even the petitioners No. 2, 3 & 6 have not placed any material before this Court to show the subsistence of lease agreement for the current period.
12. Though the petitioners claim that on account of respondents-authorities permitting them, they continue to occupy the shops by paying the rents, the respondents- authorities on the other hand claim that the petitioners, much less petitioners No.2, 3 & 6, not only continuing to occupy the shops even though the lease period has expired long back, but are also not paying the rents.
13. On 24.07.2023, when the matter was heard on Admission, this Court by order, dt.24.07.2023, directed the petitioners to consider the notice, dt.11.07.2023, as show- cause notice and permitted them to file their objections/ explanation; and that in spite of this Court granting aforesaid liberty to the petitioners, it has not been shown to this Court of the petitioners submitting any reply to the 6 said notice, dt.11.07.2023, as issued by the 2nd respondent.
14. Further, with regard to the claim of the petitioners that - i) the subject premises is in good condition and does not require any repairs and ii) the claim of the 2nd respondent that the said shops are in dilapidated condition and structurally unfit is not supported by any structural strength certificate issued by the competent authority, it is to be seen that the respondents by their counter affidavit have stated that the District R & B Officer (Executive Engineer), R & B Adilabad, having caused inspection on 13.05.2023 and having certified that the subject shops are in dilapidated condition and structurally unfit and unsound, posing a threat to the occupants.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors 1, had observed that interference with the report submitted by experts should be 1 (2013) 6 SCC 620 7 slow, as the Court is not a technical expert. The relevant observations are as under:
"187. A Constitution Bench of this Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao MANU/SC/0268/1963 : AIR 1965 SC 491, held that, normally, Court should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the Experts and it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to experts who are more familiar with the problems which they face than the courts generally can be which has been the consistent view taken by this Court. Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in State of Bihar v. Asis Kumar Mukherjee (Dr.) MANU/SC/0445/1974 : (1975) 3 SCC 602, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan MANU/SC/0152/1989 : (1990) 1 SCC 305,Central Areca Nut and Cocoa Marketing and Processing Coop. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/1327/1997 : (1997) 8 SCC 31,Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Anr. MANU/SC/0303/2001 : (2001) 5 SCC 486,Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh MANU/SC/0530/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 372 andAvishek Goenka v. Union of India MANU/SC/0345/2012 : (2012) 5 SCC 275. InWoon Tankan and Seven Others v. Asian Rare Earth Sdn. Ehd. CLJ (1992) 2 207, the Supreme Court of Malaysia vide its judgment dated 23.12.1993 examined the effect of low-level radioactive waste on the health of the population. The Supreme Court upheld the plea of the company, placing reliance on the expert opinion expressed by the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB) and took the view that since the company has been operating under license granted by AELB, an expert body, it will be taken that the expert body had the expertise to speak on the radiation level of the radioactive waste, on the health of the population.8
188. We have noticed that, so far as this case is concerned, from the safety and security point of view of life and property, on environment and all that related aspects, all the Expert Bodies are unanimous in their opinion that KKNPP has fully satisfied all safety norms to safeguard the human life, property and environment which, we are sure, will allay the fears and apprehensions expressed by the people living in and around Kudankulam. The Court, in our view, cannot sit in judgment on the views expressed by the Technical and Scientific Bodies in setting up of KKNPP plant at Kudankulam and on its safety and security."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the opinion of the expert should be relied upon inasmuch as this Court is not having technical expertise to accept or reject the claim of the petitioners with regard to the stability of the building.
17. Since, the concerned authority i.e., District R & B Officer (Executive Engineer), R & B Adilabad, having certified the building to be structurally unfit and unsound and in dilapidated condition, this Court is unable to accept the claim of the petitioners of the subject premises not 9 requiring any repairs and not being in dilapidated condition.
18. Further, this Court while disposing of the writ petition viz., W.P.No.18363 of 2024, had taken note of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel that the original allottees, who are in occupation of the shops allotted to them by the 2nd respondent-Municipality, would be given preference in the allotment of shops in the new shopping complex proposed to be constructed on the subject site, and that the petitioners No.2, 3 & 6 herein, being similarly situated, also entitled for grant of similar relief, subject to the said lessees not being in arrears of rent. Insofar as petitioners No.1, 4 & 5 are concerned, since, they are not the lessees of the 2nd respondent- Corporation, they are not entitled for grant of any relief.
19. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
10
20. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J 30th July, 2024.
gra