Judgment : This Writ Petition is preferred by a sixty-year-old woman, questioning the legality and validity of an order passed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 06.06.2012 directing the 3rd respondent owner of the building to pull down the said structure. The petitioner is eking out her livelihood by working as a domestic help. She is a tenant of the premises bearing House No. 5-9-889, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad, for more than 3 ½ decades. The 3rd respondent owner of the premises has some disputes with the tenants in the first floor of the house, against whom he filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 2537 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller-cum-XV Junior Civil Judge, which was dismissed on 01.04.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent himself damaged one room on one side which was not let out to anyone. Thereafter, he seems to have made a representation to the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation complaining that the building is in ruinous condition. Conceding to the request of the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner passed orders on 06.06.2012, in terms of Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, requiring the structure to be removed within 24 hours, on the ground that the building is not in safe condition as per the report submitted by Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University. The petitioner appears to be having a large family to support and sustain and she has been eking out her livelihood by working as a domestic help. Therefore, she objects pulling down the structure, where she is living as a tenant, as it may be difficult for her to secure a suitable alternative accommodation elsewhere. Heard Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that if the building is maintained properly by the 3rd respondent, there would not be any necessity whatsoever for pulling it down. Because the 3rd respondent has failed to properly maintain the building, the building has reached the bad stage at which it is standing, otherwise there would not have been any necessity for the Corporation to invoke the provision under Section 456 of the 1955 Act. Because the 3rd respondent has failed to properly maintain the building, the building has reached the bad stage at which it is standing, otherwise there would not have been any necessity for the Corporation to invoke the provision under Section 456 of the 1955 Act. It is also urged that the 3rd respondent has initiated the legal process for securing eviction of the tenants in the first floor and the said attempt made by him by filing O.S. No. 2537 of 2004 has failed as it was dismissed by the competent Court on 01.04.2006. Hence, the 3rd respondent has devised this method of approaching the Municipal Corporation for securing demolition of the building and thus securing eviction of the tenants whom he is not able to get evicted from the premises. It is therefore, an improper exercise of power indulged in by the 1st respondent Corporation. It is also urged that the 3rd respondent, on his own, has caused damage to two of the important walls of a portion of the building, which is lying in his possession and not leased out. This act he has indulged in purposefully so that the entire structure of the building would get weakened. Therefore, the 3rd respondent shall not be allowed to take advantage of his own folly. Sri Jaganmohan Reddy would also urge that the writ petitioner is willing to get the building repaired, so that the same can continue to stand on its own. If a building is capable of being repaired, such an option must be explored first, before it is being pulled down completely. I am not at all impressed by any of these arguments. The 3rd respondent, along with his counter-affidavit, has placed a copy of the report submitted by the Industrial Consultancy Services of the College of Engineering, JNTU, Kukatpally, Hyderabad dated 23.05.2012, to the Executive Engineer, Division No. VI, GHMC, Hyderabad. It appears from this report that the Executive Engineer solicited an opinion of the Industrial Consultancy Services of the College of Engineering, JNTU, with regard to the structural stability of the premises bearing No.5-9-889, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad, through his communication dated 25.01.2012. In response thereto, a detailed inspection and study has been undertaken. In the course of inspection, vegetation growth on the exterior walls has been noticed. In response thereto, a detailed inspection and study has been undertaken. In the course of inspection, vegetation growth on the exterior walls has been noticed. It was considered as a potential factor for weakening the walls of the structure and consequently, may endanger the structure itself. The unchecked vegetation growth is probably due to poor maintenance of the building by the 3rd respondent, but however, the inspection report reveals that the roof slab of one of the blocks has completely collapsed and the photographs indicating the collapsed roof slab portion have also been exhibited. The inspection has also revealed major cracks in the walls and the finding is that these cracks have weakened the structure and they may also further damage the structure with passage of time. The inspection has also revealed that the staircase has collapsed and a photograph has been taken showing the collapsed staircase portion. The staircase and the rest of the building are constructed by lime mortar. On physical inspection, it was observed that there is no binding strength in the concrete, indicating that there is very less presence of lime in the lime concrete. Further, the madras terrace roof is also found to be in poor state with the lime plaster peeled off at many places. Severe leakages were seen in the roof slabs. Photographs have also been exhibited clearly depicting the gaping holes in the madras terraced roof. As regards the plaster on the walls, it is observed that at several places, the plaster has peeled off, thus weakening the strength of the walls. Further, it was also noted that rat burrows have weakened the foundation of the building. It was also observed that at many places, the walls and roof slab have weakened. It is observed from these findings by the Technical Consultancy Services that the structure is in a dilapidated condition. “It is not safe for any human dwelling. A heavy rain or tremor or disturbance can bring down the structure completely. The little reinforcement in some of the structural members is also completely corroded”. It was also observed in the report that there were severe damp patches seen on the walls indicating penetration of water into the walls. The water seepage in the walls has leached out the lime content from the lime mortar in the walls making them weak without the binding material, namely lime. It was also observed in the report that there were severe damp patches seen on the walls indicating penetration of water into the walls. The water seepage in the walls has leached out the lime content from the lime mortar in the walls making them weak without the binding material, namely lime. Dampness was also seen at the underside of the roof and it was observed that these seepages have taken its toll not only on the roof but also on the wood supporting them. Lime mortar samples extracted form the roof and the walls have been got analyzed at M/s VIMTA LABS, which is an accredited and reputed testing laboratory in Hyderabad. The test results revealed that the available lime content in the mortar is nearly missing both in walls and the roof slab. This, according to the report, conclusively proves that there is no binding material in the structure. Hence, the report is concluded setting out that the structure has deteriorated due to lack of maintenance and the structure cannot be stated as structurally safe and stable. Apart from the photographs, which clearly bring out the ruinous condition in which the building is standing as of now, the test report made available by M/s VIMTA LABS has also been enclosed. Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University is one of the premier Engineering and Technological Universities in the country. When a subject expert is entrusted with the job of making a proper assessment of a building, the report submitted by such a technical expert should not be brushed aside lightly. It is the opinion of the subject expert that must be given its due weight and consideration. The fact that the subject experts have not undertaken the inspection with prior intimation to the petitioner or that the inspection was not carried out in her presence, in my opinion, would not make much of a difference. The integrity of the Technical Consultancy Services run by the College of Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University should not be allowed to be suspected and in such a light-hearted manner. The integrity of the Technical Consultancy Services run by the College of Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University should not be allowed to be suspected and in such a light-hearted manner. If the writ petitioner is in a position to appreciate as to what nature of tests are required to be carried out for ascertaining the structural stability or if the petitioner is simultaneously armed with a structure stability certificate secured from any other technical expert on the subject, perhaps, different considerations would have possibly played a role. In the instant case, except averring that the tests and inspections have not been carried out in her presence, the petitioner is not armed with any material, which can reasonably lend support to the plea that the structure in question is otherwise stable and solid. The petitioner is apparently an illiterate person. She has affixed her left hand thumb impression on the affidavit. She herself described that she is eking out her livelihood by working as a domestic help, as she is the sole bread winner in an otherwise large family. Therefore, the contention canvassed that if an opportunity is provided to her, the petitioner would undertake maintenance of the building and secure its repairs and upkeep, so as to allow the building to stand erect, is a plea raised for the mere sake of raising without any conviction. An old building, which is constructed with a madras terraced roof and with lime mortar requires much greater effort, if it is to be reinforced. The technology has undergone a vast change recently. In place of the old lime mortar structures, reinforced concrete structures (RCC) are preferred. The old structure is bound to get weakened as it would have been exposed to the vagaries of nature day in and day out for so long, all the more so when it has not been properly maintained or kept up. The fact that the 3rd respondent has made an attempt in the past to get the tenants in the first floor of the building vacated by instituting civil suit, O.S. No. 2537 of 2004 and also the fact that the said suit has ultimately been dismissed on 01.04.2006, need not necessarily lead to a sinister design on the part of the 3rd respondent to pull down the structure itself. The respondent Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has not accepted the plea of the 3rd respondent for his mere asking. Before they firmed up their opinion about the structural stability of the building in question, they have called for an inspection and a technical report by entrusting the task of examination to a Technical Consultancy Services of a premier technological university. Therefore, it is a case where the Corporation has applied its mind fully and it is alive to all the factors. The most important factor here is the opinion rendered by a technical expert about the structural stability. When the finding is that the structure is not stable and it is not safe for human habitation, in my opinion, there should be greater significance attached to human lives rather than the internal disputes existing between them. If the petitioner or for that matter, any other tenant of the said building, has some other dispute with the 3rd respondent owner, they are liable to be sorted out amicably elsewhere. It may be that the petitioner can as well insist upon the 3rd respondent to offer her right to occupy a portion in case the 3rd respondent is willing to construct a new building there, but however, those factors need not detain any further from the unsafe building from being pulled down. I am therefore, clearly of the opinion that when life of the tenants and those who are likely to come anywhere near the said building is at a serious peril or risk, such a building should be brought down. That is the safest way to preserve the human life. The supernumerary problems explained by the petitioner that she may not be able to secure a suitable accommodation in the same locality and that too at the same rate of rent currently paid by her, cannot be a factor for delaying the structure from being pulled down. When the assessment of a subject expert reveals that the building is perilously close to collapse, it is totally unsafe to allow the human habitation any further there. I am therefore, not in a position to agree or accept the request of the petitioner to allow the structure to stay put and allow her to attempt at undertaking repairs thereto. This Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. I am therefore, not in a position to agree or accept the request of the petitioner to allow the structure to stay put and allow her to attempt at undertaking repairs thereto. This Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. I trust and hope that nothing untoward will happen within the next 15 days. I sincerely pray that the building shall not collapse in the meantime. I grant 15 days’ time for the petitioner to vacate the building, duly collecting all valuables and belongings of her therefrom. The 3rd respondent therefore, on his own, may pull down the structure or allow the Corporation to pull it down at his expense. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.