THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19660 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant in respect of house No.1- 91 at Habsiguda X Roads, Hyderabad owned by the 4th respondent. The lease was initially granted for a period of 11 months on 01.10.1989. Thereafter, no renewal was granted. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 1st respondent herein intended to widen the road. The 4th respondent gave her consent for demolition of the building up to the affected portion. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in proposing to demolish the building. It is urged that the consent of the petitioner is necessary before any widening is taken. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Ushodaya Publications vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and another[1]. The respondents filed their respective counter affidavits. According to them, the petitioner does not have any right, since there is no subsisting tenancy. They placed reliance upon the judgment of another Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.453 of 2005 dated 22.02.2007. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The petitioner does not dispute the ownership of the 4th respondent over the premises. The lease commenced on 01.10.1989 and it was in force for 11 months. It may be true that the petitioner is a tenant holding over and he is now in possession of the shop. The fact however remains that the Corporation on the one hand and the owner of the premises on the other have taken recourse to Section 146 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, for demolition of the affected portion. In Ushodaya Publications’ Case, a Full Bench of this Court took the view that the consent of the tenant is also necessary before any premises is demolished for widening of the road. It is not clear as to whether the ‘tenant’ referred to in the judgment is the one in whose favour there is a subsisting tenancy or it would include a tenant hold over also. Be that as it may, another Full Bench of this Court considered that very matter and referred the same to a Larger Bench. Even while referring the matter to the Larger Bench, the widening was permitted to take place subject to the condition that the parties work out their remedies depending upon the outcome of the judgment that may be rendered by the Larger Bench. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to respondents 1 to 3 to proceed with the widening of the road. Such widening shall however be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner that may be determined by the Larger Bench of this Court. It is left open to the petitioner to initiate such proceedings, as may become relevant and necessary according to the judgment that may be rendered by the Larger Bench. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 01.12.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.19660 of 2008 Date: 01.12.2009 JSU [1] 2001(2) ALT 662 (F.B.)