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

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;

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

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.

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

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

(2013) 6 SCC 620

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.

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

requiring any repairs and not being in dilapidated