IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 6078 of 2008 Between: Syed Afsar Ali Khan S/o. Sd. Liyaqat Hussain Hyderabad, R/o. 1-4-760/1/B, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Asst. City Planner, Circle No.3, Office at Abids, Hyderabad. 3 Dr. Sabera Sultana W/o. Dr. Syed Intesaruddin Ahmed Quadri, R/o. Flat No.103, 1st Floor, H.No.4-1-1240, R.K. Residency, King Kothi, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No. 1 and 2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from Mulgi No.1-1-258/25, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, without following due process of law as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec.146 and 147 of the HMC Act, 1955. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Abdul Najeeb Khan Counsel for Respondent Nos.1& 2: Smt. Kalpana Ekbote The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from Mulgi No. 1-1-258/25, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad without following due process of law as illegal. The petitioner has asserted that he is the tenant of respondent No.3, that he is running restaurant in the ground floor portion of the building, that there are certain disputes between him and the land lady - respondent No.3 herein, who instituted proceedings in R.C.No. 158 of 2001 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking his eviction from the premises, that the said case has been decreed ordering his eviction, that he has preferred an appeal bearing No. 98 of 2006 which is pending on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and that by an order passed on 13.06.2006, by the said Court, the order of eviction against him had, in fact, been stayed. The writ petitioner suspects that under the guise of consent granted by respondent No.3 - owner of the premises for demolition of the existing structures, which were affected to a certain extent by a road widening project undertaken by respondent No.1 – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, he will, ultimately, be evicted and that such an action amounts to violating his rights of tenancy in the said premises. Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, upon instructions from respondent No.1, placed before this Court an order dated 02.02.2008 passed by respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.3 - land lady, pointing out that the property bearing No. 1-1-258/21 to 25 is getting affected up to 18’ to 15’ in depth and up to 72’ of the road frontage due to the road widening project undertaken of the road from Chikkadpally to Narayanaguda junction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the demolition of the existing structures is strictly confined to the above- referred dimensions, by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, his client has no objection for such demolition to take place, as the road widening project is undertaken by respondent No. 1 – Corporation for the overall improvement of the civic amenities including easing of the traffic congestion constantly faced on the said road. If the demolition of the existing structures is confined up to a maximum of 18’ in depth, the petitioner will not have any serious objection, inasmuch as he can be permitted to carry on his business in the rest of the unaffected portion and the demolitions shall not result in evicting him completely from the remaining portion. The learned Standing Counsel makes a statement that respondent No.1 – Corporation or its officers are no way interested or concerned in the rights of tenancy of the writ petitioner vis-à-vis respondent No.3 - land lady and that their brief is confined only for widening the road, as was determined by them and, hence, respondent No.1 – Corporation will not undertake demolition of the structures beyond what has already been pointed out in their notice dated 02.02.2008 issued to respondent No.3 - land lady. Since the petitioner expresses his no objection for undertaking the demolition of the existing structures to the extent indicated supra, to be undertaken by respondent No.1 – Corporation, the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication. It is always open for the writ petitioner and respondent No.3 to sort out their respective rights arising out of the tenancy of the petitioner in premises concerned, by recourse to law. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. The writ petitioner shall file an undertaking as indicated supra, before respondent No.1 – Corporation, within one week from today with an advance copy to respondent No.3. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 27th March 2008 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}