SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 729

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V.Shravan Kumar, J.
G.V.Siva Kumar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17539 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023

IMPORTANT POINT
The safety of inhabitants, especially children, takes precedence over internal disputes, and the authority of GHMC to issue demolition notices under Sec. 456 and 459 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

Headnote:

GHMC Act - Property Dispute - Sec. 456, 459 - The court discussed the violation of lease agreement, safety concerns, and the authority of GHMC to issue notices for demolition under Sec. 456 and 459 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking "to declare the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing notice bearing No.112/TPS/ACP/KPZ/ GHMC/2023 dt 9/6/2023 under Sec. 456 and 459 of the GHMC Act, 1955 solely to the petitioner herein holding him responsible for any untoward incidents despite the Petitioner himself having submitted a representation dtd. 9/6/2023 requesting for the demolition of the dilapidated complex in premises bearing No.10/3/112/1, 112/2 and 112/3 consisting of three floors i.e., ground first and second floors with each floor having built-up area of 5000 sq ft and totally admeasuring 15000 sq fts and abutting 4000 sq ft open area situated at Fatehnagar Village, Balanagar Mandal Ranga Reddy District as illegal and consequentially direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to remove/demolish the said dilapidated complex"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.10/3/112/1, 112/2 and 112/3 and further submits that respondent No.5 approached the petitioner with an offer to take the subject property on lease and both the parties i.e., petitioner and respondent No.5 entered into registered lease deed, bearing Doc No.901/2015, dtd. 5/2/2015. However, without the knowledge of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 had sublet the subject property to respondent No.6 and the respondent No.6 thereafter running a school in the subject property under the name and style of "Krishnaveni Talent School"

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Clause-21 of the Registered lease deed bearing Doc No.901/2015, dtd. 5/2/2015, which reads as:

21. SUB LEASE ASSIGNMENTS: The Lessee is at liberty to sublet or license, assign or create such other rights or title or interest to, over or in respect of the Schedule Premises to any of its subsidiary or any holding society or trust or company or any associated company with a substantial holding by the Lessee or by any society or association under the management and/or control of the Lessee and the same shall not ordinarily be treated as sub-letting or parting with the possession of the said letting out premises and the Lessee shall not require written consent of the Lessors in this regard. Further, as a general undertaking, except as stated herein, the Lessee shall not sub-let or assign or part with the possession of the proposed let out premises during the subsistence of this lease deed to any third party without prior written consent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 has violated the clause No.21 and had sub-let the subject property to respondent No.6 without any permission from the petitioner and further submits that since there was dispute in terms of Clause No.21 of the lease agreement, the petitioner has invoked Arbitration proceedings, and that the petitioner has filed application under Sec. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, vide Arb.Appl No.179 of 2022 before this Court seeking appointment of sole arbitrator and the same is pending for adjudication.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner physically inspected the subject property, the petitioner observed that there are leakages in the subject building property and the building is in dilapidated condition. Subsequently, petitioner requested respondent Nos.5 and 6 to vacate the building but the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are not heeding the request of the petitioner and continuing to run the school in the dilapidated building in the subject property thereby posing a significant risk to the lives of the children studying in the subject property. Subsequently, petitioner made a complaint to respondent No.4, and in turn the respondent No.4 issued notice, to petitioner bearing No.112/TPS/ACP/KPZ/ GHMC/2023, dtd. 9/6/2023 under Sec. 456 and 459 of GHMC Act, which reads as:

"In the light of your representation -take notice under Sec. 456 &459 of HMC Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top