THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 33690 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the room in premises bearing No.4-7-102/5/12 situated at Habsiguda, Hyderabad, pursuant to Notice No.4/tps/w4/KCI/GHMC/11, dated 14-03-2011 issued by the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is the tenant of the room in the subject premises under a lease agreement and she is running a beauty parlour in that room after obtaining trade permission from the respondent authorities and she has been paying municipal tax regularly. While so, on 09-12-2011, respondents visited her shop and instructed her to vacate the shop within two days, since they have decided to demolish the said shop pursuant to the alleged notice, dated 14-03-2011 issued by the respondents to her landlord. The grievance of the petitioner is that action of the respondent is illegal since she did not know the issuance of the notice until the respondents visited her shop and building is not constructed without any contrary to the sanctioned plan. Therefore, she seeks a declaration that the impugned notice issued by the respondents as illegal land arbitrary. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are trying to demolish the room in the subject premises pursuant to the notice dated 14-03-2011. Therefore, he prays to direct the respondents not to demolish the room of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that six months time elapsed after issuing notice under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and the petitioner is only tenant in respect of building and the demolition has to be taken place in accordance with the law and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned notice. 6. The petitioner said to have been running boutique for the last ten years. A notice under Section 636 of the Act has been issued to the owner of the building to demolish the room on the ground that the construction was made contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is not in dispute that the structure in which the petitioner is a tenant is earmarked for parking. Therefore, the Municipal Corporation has rightly issued the impugned notice under Section 452 of the Act followed by Section 636 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to remain in the property as the construction was made contrary to the sanctioned plan. But, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is running a boutique for the last ten years, a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to make alternative arrangements to shift the boutique. Hence, two months’ time is granted from today to the petitioner to evict the premises, failing which the respondents shall demolish the structures and recover the costs from the petitioner. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ 22nd December 2011 JUSTICE K.C.BHANU kvr