APHC010290562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH- AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE-^ AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 727 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 21.03.2025 in W.P.No. 12863 of 2020 on the file of High Court.— Between: 1. Shaik Hussain, S/o. Galib Sahib, Muslim, Aged 75 years. Prop Indian Shoe Mart, Door No.4/272-B, Near A.P.S.R.T.C Bus Stand, Near A.P.S.R.T.C Bus Stand, Gudivada-521301, Krishna Distric 2. Shaik Mohammad Aftal, S/o. Shaik Hussain, Muslim, Aged 48 years, C/o. Indian Shoe Mart, Door No. 4/272-B, Near A.P.S.R.T.C Bus Stand, Gudivada - 521301, Krishna District ...APPELLANTS AND 1. The Gudivada Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Gudivada. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 3. Yelchuri Venkata Adiseshu Subba Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Business, Hindu, Aged 57 years, R/o. D.No.8/274, Sriramapuram, Gudivada, Krishna District 4. Yelchuri Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Hindu, Aged 87 years, ^ Business, R/o. 8/274, Sri Ramapuram, Gudivada- 521301, Krishna ' District. (DIED) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay on the operation of the order passed in W.P. No. 12863 of 2020 dated 21.03.2025 till pending disposal of the Writ Appealr Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI BALA KRISHNA SASTRY-- Counsel for the Respondent No.1; M/s. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI G.L. NAGESWARA RAO representing SRI GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010290562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-i [3483] AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO; 727 of 2025 Shaik Hussain and others ...Appellants Vs. The Gudivada Municipality and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); Mr. Bala Krishna Sastry Mrs. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni [Standing Counsel for Municipalities] for R.1 GPfor M.A& U.D for R.2 Mr. G.L. Nageswara Rao representing Mr. Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy for R.3 & R.4 CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI : 27*'’ June, 2025 DATE PC ; The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.12863 of 2020. 2. The petitioners (appellants herein) filed the petition seeking a Mandamus being aggrieved of the action of private respondent Nos.3 & 4 in demolishing a portion of the shopping complex in which the petitioners claim that they are tenants in the ground floor. 2 HCJ & RC, J WA 727 2025 The demolition was undertaken by private respondents not through the Municipality but on their own. The private respondents had undertaken the demolition process based upon the report submitted by the Andhra Loyola institute of Engineering and Technology, Vijayawada, dated 29.06.2021, wherein it was concluded by the said Institute that the roof slab of the building was damaged and, therefore, it recommended either for retrofitting of the existing roof slab or for safe demolition of the structure. The building in question is stated to be more than 55 years old. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the aforementioned report however was obtained by private respondents not at the time of the demolition but subsequently during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. Be that as it may, the matter having been agitated by the petitioners before the learned single Judge, it was observed by the learned single Judge that the issue of demolition of unsafe buildings was covered in terms of Section 231 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 which envisages that if any structure appears to the Commissioner to be in ruinous state and dangerous to the passersby or to the occupiers of the neighboring structures, he may require the owner/occupier inter alia to take down or repair such a structure. It is in that background that the learned single Judge proceeded to direct the Municipality to assess the structural stability of the building in HCJ & RC, J WA_727_2025 question and come to an independent conclusion supported by before passing any order of demolition. reasons 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is aggrieved of this order the ground that no such direction could have been given by the learned single Judge to the Municipality inasmuch as the issue whether a particular building ought to be demolished or not could have been considered only by a civil Court in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Residential and Non Residential Premises Tenancy Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act of 2017’]. on It is also stated that a civil suit for recovery of possession had since been filed by the private respondents and was pending in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to place reliance Section 21 of the Act of 2017 to bring home the point that a tenant could be evicted only in terms of Section 21 on the grounds of non-payment of rent, personal necessity or on grounds of carrying out repairs to the building the ground of rebuilding/additions/alterations and even demolition. upon or on 7. While it is true that if a landlord, in addition to the grounds which are available to him in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 2017, seeks the eviction of a tenant on the ground of demolition may be on account of the structure having been rendered unsafe yet, the provisions of Section 231 the Municipalities Act do not take away the right of the Commissioner of the of 4 HCJ & RC, J WA 727 2025 Municipality concerned to order such a demolition, if upon assessment of the structural stability of the premises it is found that it would be dangerous to the passersby or the occupiers of the said building. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in directing the Municipality to assess the structural stability and soundness of the building in question. In any case, till such time as a proper assessment is made by the Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality, the demolition cannot be permitted to 8. be undertaken by the private respondents. The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU deputy REGiS i RAR //TRUE COPY// r SECTION OFFICER To, Gudivada Municipality, Gudivada, Krishna District. Municipal Administration and Urban Development^ of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur 1. The Commissioner 2. The Secretary, Government District 3. One CC to Sri Bala Krishna Sastry, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to M/s. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel foK Municipalities [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri 6. Two CCS to GP for High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Municipal Administration and Urban Developm^ ssb HIGH COURT DATED:27/06/2025 JUDGMENT WA No.727 of 2025 1 1 JUL 2025 SsCyffentSec^ rn Co O' DISPOSING OF THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS