The Housing Board does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the rights of privacy or security of neighboring houses and cannot enforce clause 9 of the lease-cum-sale agreement by compulsory demolition and alteration without resorting to a court of law.

P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) ). THE petitioner s husband was an allottee of the house bearing No. 32/8 Residential Staff Quarters, Essamia Bazar, Hyderabad in the year 1961 by the City Improvement Board, now under the A. P. Housing Board. In this writ petition the petitioner challenged the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent, A. P. Housing Board directing the petitioner to close the ventilator as it affects the privacy of the inmates of neighbouring house No. 31/spl. A. the 2nd respondent herein.

( 2 ) ). It is averred in the petition the house was allotted to her husband in the year 1961 and he paid the entire instalments. But however he died without taking the necessary sale deed from the Board but she executed the agreement-cum-sale deed in favour of the Board on 17-2-83 and continued to be in possession of the property. On a complaint made to the Board by the 2nd respondent the following two impugned orders were passed. In the first order dt. 24-11-83 it is stated that the 2nd respondent made a representation to the Board that the ventilator in the house of the petitioner is adversely affecting his privacy and security and hence it should be closed and his request has been examined on consultation with the Chief Engineer, A. P. Housing Board in the light of the various provisions of the hire purchase agreement and it was decided that the ventilator in question should be closed immediately and another be opened. According to the petitioner the ventilator is in existence since the inception of the construction of the house. The 1st respondent issued another notice dt. 30-11-83 stating that as per the notice dt. 24-11-83 when the District Housing Engineer visited the house of the petitioner to carry out the alterations he was not allowed to do so stating that notice should be given to her. Hence the second notice dt. 30-11-83 was given directing the petitioner to allow Engineer to carry out the alterations failing which the direction of the Board will be deemed to be breach of the terms of the agreement and further action will be taken for cancellation of the agreement.

( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these two notices are illegal as the ventilator was in existence throughout and the Board has no authority to protect the rights of privacy or security of the 2nd respondent and this unauthorised-interference with her enjoyment is liable to be interdicted by this court.

( 4 ) THIS petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the Board and also the party respondent. It is urged by them that (1) the ventilator in question was opened unauthorisedly by the petitioner and the same is liable to be closed; (2) Under Cl. 9 of the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Board the petitioner is not entitled to make any additions or alterations to the house without previous written permission of the Board and if such alterations or additions are made they can be demolished or set right by the Board without the intervention of the court, (3) the question raised in the writ petition is one relating to the contractual rights and hence this court cannot interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) THE allotment of the house to the petitioner though founded in a contract matured into possessory interest in immovable property if not proprietary interest in it and is not a mere contractual obligation. It is true the allottee has not become the owner of the property. It is also not correct-to state that the agreement entered with allottee is a hire purchase agreement. In fact the agreement of the petitioner with the Board is termed as lease-cum-sale agreement. The scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act and the rules made thereunder clearly contemplate valuable interest in the property being conferred on the allottees. It is not correct to describe this agreement of allotment as hire purchase agreement as generally understood under law. A hire purchase agreement has two elemen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document