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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
