( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be the tenant of the 2nd respondent. In this writ petition, she wants a prerogative writ directing the 2nd respondent to approach the rent Controller under Section 12 of the andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the rent Act )-

( 2 ) A reading of the writ affidavit shows that no particular relief is sought against the 1st respondent and the relief is sought only against a private person who is admittedly the landlord. Even in a suit for specific relief, it is well settled that no body can be compelled either to desist from approaching the Court or to approach a legal Forum with a particular remedy. It is left to the exercise of the choice of person to avail such remedies as are available in law.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the landlord requested the tenants to vacate the premises. When they refused he invented, it is alleged a clever method of approaching the 1st respondent to take action under the provisions of Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act, 1955 (for short the HMC act ) read with the Andhra Pradesh municipal Corporations Act, 1994. This according to the petitioner is illegal.

( 4 ) TWO submissions are made. First, he submits that when a building is bona fide required for carrying out repairs, alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the building vacated, the landlord has to approach the Rent Controller and seek appropriate orders. When such an application under Section 12 of the Rent act is made, the Rent Controller shall not pass an order permitting the landlord to reerect the building unless the landlord gives an undertaking to the Rent Controller that the building on completion of the repairs, alterations or additions be offered to the same tenant who delivered such possession pursuant to an order under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Rent Act. According to the petitioner, when such a procedure is provided by special enactment, the 1st respondent at the instance of the 2nd respondent cannot resort to a remedy under the HMC Act.

( 5 ) SECONDLY it is submitted that the building known as padma building is not in such a dangerous or dilapidated condition that it requires immediate demolition under section 456 of the HMC Act.

( 6 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that in this particular area, the 1st respondent has undertaken road widening work. As and when the road is to be widened in front of padma building, one tenant or the other is approaching the Court and stalling the work. He also submits that as and when any decision is taken to demolish Padma building, due procedure of law will be followed as contained under Section 456 of the HMC Act. The said section permits the commissioner of Municipal Corporation to order for fencing off, taking down, securing or repairing the structure if there is urgent and imminent danger of the ruinous structure falling down even before giving notice or in a case where notice is issued, even before expiry of the notice period.

( 7 ) THE provisions of Section 12 of the Rent Act are attracted when the Rent controller on an application made by the landlord is satisfied that the tenanted building is reasonably and bonafide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs, alterations or additions which cannot be carried out without the building vacated whereas the provisions of Section 456 of the HMC Act operate in a different environment. If it appears to the Commissioner of Corporation that any structure, building etc. , is in a ruinous condition or likely to fall or in a way dangerous to any person occupying, restoring to or passing by such structure may be ordered to be pulled down, ordered to be secured properly or ordered to be removed or ordered to be repaired. However, before taking any action under sub-section (1) of Section 456 as indicated herein, there is an obligation on the