The court upheld that precedents support evictions for safety, prioritizing expert structural reports over tenants' claims when imminent danger exists.

ORDER :

1. Since the challenge in all these Writ Petitions is to the action of the respondent authorities in relation to same property, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1, Sri K. Siddhartha Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Sri Aadesh Varma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents.

3. For the sake convenience, the facts stated in W.P. No.18240 of 2024 are being referred.

4. It is the common case of the petitioners that they are all tenants of the property belonging to the 6th respondent consisting of 19 small units admeasuring 70 to 75 sq. yards each with separate door numbers situated at Devi Deen Bagh, Kandaswamy Lane, Hanuman Tekdi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad; that each of the house units consists of a verandah, hall and a small room; that out of the 19 small units, the petitioners herein numbering to 9 (nine) are only residing therein presently on a monthly rent of Rs.400 to 500/-; and that the petitioners have been residing in the aforesaid premises for the past 70 years.

5. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the 6th respondent at an earlier point of time had evicted 2 to 3 occupants of the building by following due process; and that the 6th respondent in order to get the petitioners also evicted from the subject premises without following due process of law, had approached the respondent authorities and with the active assistance of respondent Nos.2 to 5 and with the help of Police Authorities, is intending to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house units in their occupation.

6. Petitioners contend that during all through these years of their stay in the aforesaid premises, there has been no disturbance whatsoever from any corner and on account of change in the Management, the 6th respondent is now intending to dispossess the petitioners from their respective house units indirectly by using the authority of the official respondents.

7. Petitioners further contend that the 6th respondent in order to execute its nefarious plan of getting the petitioners evicted from their respective house units, had visited the petitioners’ premises on 29-06-2024 along with the men and machinery i.e. bulldozers, of respondent authorities for demolishing the house units of the petitioners.

8. Petitioners also contend that the respondent authorities being public authorities and discharging public functions and duties are required to issue notice and follow due process of law, if the said authorities intend to take any action against the subject premises of the petitioners; and that the respondent authorities without issuing any notice are resorting to demolition of the house units in occupation of the petitioners thereby are trying to dispossess the petitioners therefrom, without following due process of law. Thus, it is contended that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT , 1955 (for short ‘the Act’).

9. Petitioners further contend that on the respondent authorities resorting to the aforesaid action on 29-06-2024, they have approached the respondent authorities on 04-07-2024 along with all the documents to prove their possession over the subject premises; that the officials of the respondent-Corporation did n