HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7410 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Corporation and Sri M.Vidyasagar, Learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 7 who have filed caveats in this Writ Petition. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The 1st petitioner is a tenant and is in occupation of five shops bearing No.6D-1-123, 6D-1-25, 6D-1-26 and the 2nd petitioner is in occupation of the shop bearing No.6D-1-22 near Gadiyarapu Stambham in Eluru Municipal Corporation. They claim to have taken the property on lease from Polisetti Sowbhagyamma. It is their case that the property was leased to them on a monthly rent of Rs.750/-. While they would refer to certain rent control proceedings between the petitioners and respondents 3 to 7, it is wholly unnecessary to go into these aspects since the challenge, in this writ petition, is to the action of the respondents in seeking to demolish the structure. The petitioners have averred, in paragraph 10 of the writ affidavit, that it is only on receipt of the caveat petition did they come to know that a notice had allegedly been issued by the Municipal Corporation on 11.2.2010 directing the residents of the building to vacate the premises to enable them to demolish the structure under Section 456 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as extended to the respondent – Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). They would deny receipt of the said notice. They would contend that the 2nd respondent, without causing enquiry, without issuing notice and without giving them an opportunity of being heard, had issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.2.2010. Section 456(1) of the Act enables the Commissioner, if at any time it appears to him that any structure is in a ruinous condition or is likely to fall or is in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure, to require the owner or occupier of such structure, by written notice, either to pull down or to secure or to remove or to repair such structure or to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. Section 459 requires the Commissioner to issue a notice under Section 456(1) only after giving the owner or occupier, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection and adducing evidence, if any, and after being satisfied that the objection which is raised is invalid or insufficient. Section 459 of the Act requires a notice to be issued not only to the owner of the building but also to the occupier which the petitioners claim they are. On a notice being issued under Section 459, the occupier (the petitioners herein) are entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of not only stating their objections but also of adducing evidence if they so chose. It is only after such objections are filed, and the Commissioner is satisfied that the objections raised are invalid or insufficient, is he entitled to take action under Section 456 (1) of the Act. Even under Section 456(1) of the Act it is not necessary that the Commissioner should, in all cases, direct that the structure be pulled down. The said provision requires him to call upon the owner or occupier either to pull down or to secure or to remove or to repair such structure and thereby prevent all causes of danger therefrom. The purpose of issuing a notice under Section 456(1) is to prevent danger which may arise as a result of a structure being in a ruinous condition or of a structure which is likely to fall or which is in any way dangerous to any person, occupying, resorting to or passing by, such structure. In view of the specific assertion in the affidavit, (which fact is not denied by Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 7), that the notice prescribed under Section 459 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 has not been issued to the petitioners, I consider it appropriate to permit the 2nd respondent to issue the notice prescribed under Section 459 of the Act, to the petitioners herein, give them a reasonable opportunity of stating their objections, and of letting in evidence if they so choose, and, if he is satisfied that the objections raised are invalid or insufficient, to issue the notice prescribed under Section 456(1) of the Act. Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Eluru Municipal Corporation, would state that the 2nd respondent would issue the notice under Section 459 of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners herein shall file their objections and adduce evidence, if they so choose, within three weeks from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 459 of the Act and, if such objections are filed and evidence is let in within the aforesaid period of three weeks, the 2nd respondent shall consider the objections and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter. Needless to state that, without adhering to the procedure aforementioned, the 2nd respondent shall not take further steps to demolish the buildings in question. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. ___________ 1-4-2010 Note: Issue operative portion of the order By wire at party’s cost Office to return the bundle to the CMs’ Section after communicating the order B/o asp