This Writ Petition is preferred by a sixty-year-old woman, questioning the legality and validity of an order passed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 06.06.2012 directing the 3rd respondent owner of the building to pull down the said structure.

The petitioner is eking out her livelihood by working as a domestic help. She is a tenant of the premises bearing House No. 5-9-889, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, for more than 3 ½ decades. The 3rd respondent owner of the premises has some disputes with the tenants in the first floor of the house, against whom he filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 2537 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller-cum-XV Junior Civil Judge, which was dismissed on 01.04.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent himself damaged one room on one side which was not let out to anyone. Thereafter, he seems to have made a representation to the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation complaining that the building is in ruinous condition. Conceding to the request of the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner passed orders on 06.06.2012, in terms of Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, requiring the structure to be removed within 24 hours, on the ground that the building is not in safe condition as per the report submitted by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. The petitioner appears to be having a large family to support and sustain and she has been eking out her livelihood by working as a domestic help. Therefore, she objects pulling down the structure, where she is living as a tenant, as it may be difficult for her to secure a suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere.

Heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that if the building is maintained properly by the 3rd respondent, there would not be any necessity whatsoever for pulling it down. Because the 3rd respondent has failed to properly maintain the building, the building has reached the bad stage at which it is standing, otherwise there would not have been any necessity for the Corporation to invoke the provision under Section 456 of the 1955 Act. It is also urged that the 3rd respondent has initiated the legal process for securing eviction of the tenants in the first floor and the said attempt made by him by filing O.S. No. 2537 of 2004 has failed as it was dismissed by the competent Court on 01.04.2006. Hence, the 3rd respondent has devised this method of approaching the Municipal Corporation for securing demolition of the building and thus securing eviction of the tenants whom he is not able to get evicted from the premises. It is therefore, an improper exercise of power indulged in by the 1st respondent Corporation. It is also urged that the 3rd respondent, on his own, has caused damage to two of the important walls of a portion of the building, which is lying in his possession and not leased out. This act he has indulged in purposefully so that the entire structure of the building would get weakened. Therefore, the 3rd respondent shall not be allowed to take advantage of his own folly. Sri Jaganmohan Reddy would also urge that the writ petitioner is willing to get the building repaired, so that the same can continue to stand on its own. If a building is capable of being repaired, such an option must be explored first, before it is being pulled down completely.

I am not at all impressed by any of these arguments. The 3rd respondent, along with his counter-affidavit, has placed a copy of the report submitted by the Industrial Consultancy Services of the College of Engineering, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad dated 23.05.2012, to the Executive Engineer, Division No. VI, GHMC, Hyderabad. It appears from this report that the Executive Engineer solicited an opinion of the Industrial Consultancy Services of the College of Engineering, JNTU, with regard to the structural stability of the premises bearing No.5-9-889, Gu