SHAIK IBRAHIM Vs. CHAIRMAN HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. No. 794 of 1962 : This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the notice of eviction dated 8-9-1962 issued by the Housing Board, Hyderabad The facts of the case are these : The petitioner alleged that he had taken on lease a plot of land measuring about 100 Sq. Yards situated at Tuljaguda, Mozamjahi Market, Hyderabad, about 30 years ago from the then owner Samastan Kakalwar. Later, the City Improvement Bord, Hyderabad, became the owner and the petitioner became the tenant of the said Board. It is said that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the City Improvement Board embodying the terms of the lease, The petitioner, who has business in carpentry has put up sheds in the course of his business incurring an expense of about Rs. 15,000/ While so, the Housing Board, which has succeeded the City Improvement Board as Landlord, has issued a notice of eviction now being challenged stating that the Petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of its premises. The petitioner has therefore moved this Court questioning the notice of eviction.

(2.) The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, the sole respondent herein has filed a counter-affidavit. It is averred therein that it is correct that the petitioner was the tenant of the City Improvement Board and that he has been paying rent. The property originally belonged to one Rani Ayamma who died without a heir. The property was handed over to the City Improvement Board and thereafter to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. It is further stated that the Housing Board could terminate the tenancy whenever the premises are required by it, viz. development of the area or the construction of houses or any other proposal. It is further stated that the tenancy was terminated and that, after the termination of the tenancy, eviction was ordered. It was claimed that the order of eviction was passed after due formalities and notices were issued as required by law.

(3.) In support of this writ petition, the learned Counsel (Mr, Sardar Ali Khan) has contended that the petitioner has been continuing as a tenant and that he was not given any notice of termination of his tenancy. He also contended that in the notice in question purported to have been given under Sub Section (1) of Section 52 of the Hyderabad Housing Board Act, 1956 (Act No. LVI of 1986). hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, none of the grounds set out under that provision for the eviction of a tenant have been disclosed by the Housing Board. He would therefore urge that the petitioner's tenancy has not been terminated under Section 52 (1) of the Act, that he is not a person in unauthorised occupation, and that the notice threatening him with forcible eviction is bad in law.