THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.24810, 24854 and 25455 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Sri P.Ramesh, 2nd respondent in W.P.Nos.24810 and 24854 of 2010 and 3rd respondent in W.P.No.25455 of 2010, is the owner of premises, which is known as Fazal Manzil, Sadarbazar, Karimnagar. The petitioners in these writ petitions are tenants, in respect of different portions of the said building. It appears that the Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar, found that the building is in dilapidated condition, and accordingly, issued notices, dated 25.09.2010, in exercise of power under Section 462(I)(C) read with Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, as it applies to the Karimnagar Municipal Corporation, requiring the occupants of the premises to vacate the same. It was also mentioned that, in case the premises are not vacated, they would be demolished by the Corporation, in view of public safety. The petitioners challenge the said notices. The common case of the petitioners is that the notices were issued at the instance of owner of the premises, who did not find valid grounds to evict them in accordance with law. It is also stated that the Corporation did not issue any show cause notice to them, before forming an opinion as to the condition of the building. The owner of the building opposed the writ petitions by stating that the building is an old structure and that it is in a dilapidated condition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. This Court found that irrespective of the merits of the grounds raised by the respective parties, public interest is involved, in case the building is in a dilapidated condition. To ascertain this fact, the Head Department of Civil Engineering, JNTU, was directed through order dated 01.10.2010, to cause inspection of the building by himself or cause to be inspected by faculty members, who have specialized knowledge in structural engineering. A sum of Rs.10,000/- payable by the writ petitioners was prescribed as their fee. The Head Department of Civil Engineer, JNTU, forwarded a report dated 02.10.2010, to this Court, together with the photographs and adequate details. It was ultimately opined that the present condition of the building does not meet the requirements of safety and stability laid down by existing codes of practice for a habitable building. On behalf of writ petitioners, an objection was raised stating that the team of Engineers did not issue notice. Taking the same into account, this Court issued direction to the Head Department to cause the inspection once again, after issuing notice. Such inspection was made on 12.06.2011, in the presence of the petitioners or their representatives. The same opinion was expressed, namely that the building is not safe for human habitation. The interests of the petitioners is only in their capacity as tenants. Howsoever anxious they may be to continue as tenants to the building, the public safety, on account of the brittle condition of the building, cannot be ignored. The petitioners do not have any independent right of their own, nor they have established before this Court that the view taken by the Municipal Corporation is without basis. The report submitted by the Head Department of Civil Engineer of JNTU, fortifies the opinion formed by the Municipal Corporation, before it issued the impugned notices. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the impugned notices. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In case the petitioners are in possession of the premises, or their belongings are left in the premises, they shall have to be entitled to vacate the premises, or to take away their belongings, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01.11.2011. GJ