THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.S.A.Nos.13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 OF 2009 15th September 2009 1. C.M.S.A.No.13 of 2009 Between: Shri Raghunandan, S/o.Ramalingaiah, 50 years, Occ.Partner of M/s.Sri Laxminarasimha Coconut Co., In the rear side portion of two rooms at 15-1-3, J.N.Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And five others. …RESPONDENTS 2. C.M.S.A.No.14 of 2009 Between: Shri Champalal Jain, S/o.Sohan Raj Jain, 66 years, Occ.Business Carrying at 15-1-2, J.N.Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And five others. …RESPONDENTS 3. C.M.S.A.No.18 of 2009 Between: Shri Heeralal, S/o.Johermal, 54 years, Occ.Business Carrying at 15-1-1, J.N.Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And five others. …RESPONDENTS 4. C.M.S.A.No.19 of 2009 Between: Bharat Kumar, S/o.Sri Parasmal Jain, 42 years, Occ.Business at 15-1-2/1, J.N.Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And five others. …RESPONDENTS 5. C.M.S.A.No.20 of 2009 Between: Shri K.Ramulu, S/o.Late Narsaiah, 74 years, being rep.by his Power of Attorney Shri K.Ashok Kumar, S/o.Ramulu, 45 years, Occ.Business carrying at 15-1-4/B, J.N.Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And five others. …RESPONDENTS 6. C.M.S.A.No.21 of 2009 Between: Madhu Ben Shah, W/o.Harilal Shah, 68 years, Occo.Business, rep.by her GPA Dilip Kumar H.Shah, S/o. Late Harilal Shah, 40 years, Carrying at 15-1-4/A, J.N.Road, Osmangunj, Hyderabad. …APPELLANT AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, having its office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. And five others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.S.A.Nos.13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 02.03.2009 rendered by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in M.A.No.127 of 2007 and batch. The individual appeallants are the tenants of the respective mulgis. Respondents 2 to 6, in all the appeals, are the owners thereof. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the first respondent in all the appeals, issued notices under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 {“the Act’ for brevity}, to the respective occupants of the mulgis requiring them to move out within the time stipulated therein. It was alleged that the buildings are in a dilapidated condition and it is no longer safe for the inmates to continue in the occupation. The appellants filed M.A.No.127 of 2007 and batch before the lower appellate Court assailing the notices. Through the common order dated 02.03.2009, the learned Chief Judge dismissed the appeals. Sri Damodar Mundra, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the first respondent issued notices, obviously, at the instance of respondents 2 to 6 with a view to terminate the lease. He contends that his clients are in occupation of the premises for the past four decades and since the owners did not find any ground to vacate them, this device of notices under Section 456 of the Act was resorted to. Learned counsel submits that the lower appellate Court did not take any technical assistance in evaluating the structural stability of the building and the notices were mechanically upheld. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, submits that the buildings are about 100 years old and the condition is so precarious that they are likely to collapse at any point of time. He submitted that the concerned authorities of the Corporation have examined the building and only on being satisfied that it cannot withstand any longer, notices were issued. Sri T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6, submits that the part of the building has already collapsed and there is likelihood of the entire building to collapse. He, further, submits that his clients are prevented from putting the premises to proper use by undertaking development. The main ground urged by the appellants is that the lower appellate Court did not undertake any technical evaluation of the building. It is in this context this Court passed an order on 09.06.2009 requesting the Head, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, to test the building, as regards its durability and structural stability. In compliance with the said direction, the Head, Department of Civil Engineering, has visited the building with his team and submitted a report dated 19.08.2009. The photographs of the building have also been appended to. The report, insofar as physical features of the building, reads as under. “It is observed that the rear side of the buildings is in dilapidated condition, which is clearly visible from the spalling of plastering on slabs and walls. The supporting Channels of the slab are completely rusted and fully exposed to the open atmosphere. In some locations columns are opened around 50% of its cross- sectional area. The first floor roof plastering has been completely opened and the reinforcement is exposed. The reinforcement was corroded completely. The front side of the first floor of the building has been distressed in many locations in the slab. Tree roots have spread in to the slab and walls of the first floor of the building. The whole slab of the first floor of the building has been distressed severely. The upper portion of the building elements i.e. parapet walls, side-railings are fully deteriorated and plastering is opening up. The drain (Nala) adjacent to the building is continually seeping in to the sub-structures causing dampness in the walls. The cracks have been observed in the front side portion of the ground floor building.” In conclusion, the Head, Department of Civil Engineering, stated as under. “Based on the physical observations and photo analysis, it is concluded that the lime mortar concrete of the existing building has lost its strength and cannot carry any further loads.” In view of this valuation, it cannot be said that the notices issued by the first respondent are defective or without basis. The safety of the inmates as well as the passers by is totally at stake. The first respondent owes public duty to ensure that the said buildings are not occupied by the individuals and also to ensure that the hazardous structures are removed before any loss is caused to property or lives. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed. The appellants are granted time, till the end of November 2009 to vacate and such occupation shall be at their own risk. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 15th September 2009 RRB