THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27495 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are lessees of small individual premises/structures owned by the 2nd respondent, at 4-5-272 to 280, Subhash Road, Secunderabad. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, issued notice under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioners, requiring them to vacate the premises, stating that they have become dilapidated, and pose threat to human life. The petitioners challenge the individual notices. According to them, the notices were issued at the instance of the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the structures are in good condition, and that there is no necessity for them to vacate. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, with supporting material. It is stated that the structures are very old, and being temporary/improvised in nature, some of them have already collapsed, during the last rainy season. According to the 2nd respondent, there would be threat to the lives of the inmates, if the structures are not pulled down. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent. The Corporation is conferred with the power to issue notice to the inmates or owners of the premises, which have become dilapidated, and pose threat to the safety of the inmates. The petitioners are tenants of the premises, owned by the 2nd respondent. The material placed before this Court discloses that the premises were constructed, not according to any plan, nor do they have any strong walls or foundation. The petitioners do not dispute the contention of the 2nd respondent, that among the cluster of the premises, some have already collapsed. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned notices are without factual or legal basis. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients may be allowed some time, to vacate the premises. In matters of this nature, it is not at all advisable for the inmates to take risk. However, the petitioners are granted time, till the end of May, 2011, to vacate the premises. This, however, is subject to the condition that the stay in the premises shall be, at their own risk, and, if any untoward incident takes place, neither the 1st respondent, nor the 2nd respondent shall be held liable, in any manner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-02-2011. KO