THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19859 OF 2010 Dated: 17.08.2010 Between: Utsavlal Jain ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by Commissioner, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19859 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be the tenant in respect of premises bearing No.15-8-555/4, Feelkhana, Hyderabad. Alleging that the 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the premises and the respondents 4 to 7, who claim to have purchased the premises in question from the 3rd respondent, are proceeding with demolition of the said premises without obtaining any permission as required under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), the petitioner made a representation dated 13.06.2010 requesting the 1st respondent to take the necessary action against the respondents 3 to 7. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that no permission as such is required under the Act for demolition and as per Section 423 of the Act the person, who proposes to take down a building has to take the preventive measures by arranging fences or the screens extending to the full height of such building so as to prevent pollution of the surrounding air with dust or injury or damage by debris, bricks, wood or other material. No other provision could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which provides for any prior permission of the Corporation. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner filed O.S.No. 2010 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondents 3 to 7 herein for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property and it is stated that a temporary injunction granted by the civil Court restraining the respondents 3 to 7 herein from interfering with the possession of the petitioner is in operation. Hence it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion as to the correctness of the allegations made against the respondents 3 to 7. So far as the protective measures as required under Section 423 of the Act are concerned, the learned standing counsel stated that the Corporation would ensure that the necessary protective measures are taken by all the concerned. Accordingly, recording the statement of the learned standing counsel for the Corporation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 17.08.2010 Ivd