THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22277 of 2007 Date:02.11.2009 Between: Mohanlal. ..Petitioner and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22277 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is said to be tenant in respect of a mulgi in door No.21-3-753, Chelapura, Hyderabad, owned by the third respondent for the past two decades. The third respondent initiated steps for eviction of the petitioner before the Rent Controller, and thereafter, the Appellate Authority. He was not successful in both the proceedings. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises, on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition; under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (‘the HMC Act’ for short). Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed M.A.No.160 of 2005 before the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said notice was set aside through order dated 10.11.2006. However it was left open to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to get the premises examined by the engineer concerned, and to issue fresh proceedings thereafter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is trying to demolish the premises contrary to the orders passed in M.A.No.160 of 2005. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. This Court issued notice before admission way back on 17.10.2007 and interim stay was granted for a period of two weeks. It was not continued thereafter. It is not known as to whether the building is still in tact. It is no doubt true that the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes, has set aside the notice issued under Sections 459 and 456 of the HMC Act with certain directions. Three years have elapsed. Even assuming that there is some difference about the evaluation of the strength of the building by the authorities of respondent Nos.1 and 2, the passage of three years certainly needs to be taken into account. The petitioner is not able to state as to the exact date or the year of construction of the premises. It cannot be said that the notice was issued with an oblique motive. Public safety is primary concern of the Corporation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief as prayed for except that the petitioner be permitted to remain in the premises for a further period of three months, in case the building is still in fact. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that in case the petitioner is still in possession of the premises bearing No.21- 3-753, it shall be open to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to demolish the same after expiry of three months from today, if it was not already demolished. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02nd November, 2009 GHN