HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 1912 OF 2010 Friday, the Thirtieth day of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between Mohd. Jahangir Petitioner AND A.P. State Housing Board, Rep. By its Executive Engineer, Housing Central Division, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 1912 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant assailing the Judgment dated 22.03.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.M.A. No. 33 of 2010 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 25.01.2010 made in Case No.30/CA/Central/07 passed by the Competent Authority (Central Division) under A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956, directing the petitioner herein to vacate the petition schedule premises on expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice and to pay the arrears of rents. The petitioner herein is the tenant of garage No.4, Bachelor Quarter Complex, M.J.Market, Hyderabad, which was leased to him in the year 1979 by the respondent Housing Board. The lease was subsequently renewed in 1984, 1989, 1994 and 1999 which expired in 2004 and in terms of Regulation 17, neither the petitioner herein had applied for renewal nor the Housing Board is competent to renew it without conducting auction by enhancing the rent by a minimum of 50% over the existing rent. That apart, in terms of the report of the Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, the building became unsafe and its occupation has become hazardous for public safety, which is also confirmed by the Engineer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on inspection and pursuant thereto, issued show cause notice to the Housing Board, which expressed no objection to pull down the building. Consequently, by notice dated 13.3.2007, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises by 31.5.2007 and pay the rents with interest up to date. Since the petitioner did not vacate the premises, the respondent herein filed the above case under Sec. 52 and 53 of the A.P. Housing Board Act to treat him as an unauthorized occupant, to evict him and to direct him to pay a sum of Rs.28,385/- towards arrears of rent and interest on delayed payment. The Competent Authority observing that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is competent either to grant permissions for constructions or to identify the buildings which are of potential hazard to public at large, by order dated 25.01.2010, directed the petitioner herein to vacate the petition schedule premises on expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice and to pay the arrears of rents and on his failure to vacate the premises, the Bailiff of the Court was allowed to proceed for eviction of the petitioner and in case of the petitoiner not paying arrears of rent, authorized him to attach the property to the value equivalent to the arrears of rents. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Competent Authority, the tenant preferred an appeal being CMA No. 33 of 2010 and the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by the judgment impugned herein, has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the tenant preferred this Revision Petition. The relation of the petitioner and the respondent as lessee and the lessor is not in dispute. The grant and renewal of lease in favour of the petitioner herein is also not in dispute. As can be seen from the judgment impugned, the joint inspection conducted by the A.P. Housing Board on 24.2.2007 shows that the balcony including railing, which is connecting all the rooms in all the floors with the staircase has developed sagging effect and, therefore, it is unsafe to continue to occupy the building and at any time it may collapse, which may result in untoward incident inasmuch the building is located in a busy locality. The lower appellate court has meticulously considered each and every aspect of the issue and rightly came to the conclusion that the petition schedule premises is not safe for accommodation not only to the habitants but also public at large and rightly directed the petitioner herein to be evicted, granting thirty days time to the petitioner for vacating and handing over the premises to the respondent. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the lower appellate court is perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the garage, which is leased out to the petitioner, is the only source of livelihood for the petitioner and if the petitioner is evicted at once, his livelihood would be at jeopardy. Having regard to this submission, six months time is granted to the petitioner to vacate and hand over physical possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari April 30, 2010 MAS