APHC010549342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1104 of 2025 along with WA.No.1084 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-5 & 38 [3446] W.A.No.1104 of 2025 Surender Basani and another ...Appellants Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Y V Sitha Rama Sharma (in WA.No.1104 of 2025) Mr. B V S Chalapati Rao (in WA.No.1084 of 2025) Advocate(s) for Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Yatindra Dev (Spl.GP) of the official respondents Mr. N Sai Phanindra Kumar for the unofficial respondents CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 16th October, 2025 P C : The present writ appeals have been preferred against common judgment and order, dated 22.09.2025, passed in WP.Nos.15438 and 14197 of 2025. 2 HCJ & RRR, J WAs_1104 & 1084_2025 2. The appellants are tenants in a building which is sought to be demolished by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. 3. Being aggrieved of the demolition order, dated 30.05.2025 and the consequential orders, the appellants herein preferred the writ petitions. 4. By virtue of the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge, the appellants herein were directed to vacate and remove their belongings considering the report submitted by the JNTU, Kakinada, through its civil engineering department who had deployed a team of supervisors from the University who are stated to have inspected the building and upon inspection recommended that the building had served its age and was not safe and, therefore, had recommended its dismantling. It was also reported that the occupants on the ground floor of the building were liable to great risk of life as the collapse of the damaged portion of the roof may take place without any warning. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while the report of the JNTU Kakindada was furnished, no opportunity at all was given to the appellants to file their objections to the same and it is stated that had an opportunity been given, they would have produced material to show that notwithstanding some damage which was reported, the building was habitable with some repairs. 3 HCJ & RRR, J WAs_1104 & 1084_2025 6. In the ordinary course, we would have considered remanding the matter to the learned single Judge with a view to give every possible opportunity to the appellants to express their objections to the report submitted by the JNTU, Kakinada, which became the very basis for ordering the eviction of the appellants who are tenants in the said building, yet, counsel for the appellants would submit that in case more time was given with a view to find alternate spaces and with a view to avoid economic hardship to the families of the appellants, they would vacate the premises. We are inclined to accept their prayer. 7. We modify the judgment and order impugned to the extent that the appellants would vacate the premises in question not longer than six months from today. The appellants would be under an obligation to keep paying to the landlord, the rent which was agreed to be paid between them. The seals fixed on the premises in question by the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation shall be removed and the appellants should be permitted to continue with their business for the period permitted. We make it clear that the occupation of the premises in question would be entirely at the occupants’ own risk as has been stated by them. 4 HCJ & RRR, J WAs_1104 & 1084_2025 8. Be that as it may, this order, however, would not apply to appellant No.2 in WA.No.1084 of 2025 namely Shaik Sufian Kafil, who is already stated to have vacated the premises in question. 9. The Writ Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Vjl