The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that while failing to provide tenants an opportunity to contest a building safety report may be a procedural irregularity, practical considerations can allow courts to grant modified relief balancing competing equities. The judgment does not overrule existing law but affirms judicial discretion in fashioning remedies in demolition and eviction matters, particularly involving urgent public safety concerns. This order may be cited as binding authority within Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/1084/2025 of R SRINIVAS Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010532572025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, R RAGHUNANDAN RAO |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | The Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Andhra Pradesh subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the ability of the court to grant equitable relief in procedural irregularity |
| Type of Law | Administrative law, Municipal law, Natural justice |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that although, ordinarily, parties must be given an opportunity to object to expert reports driving adverse decisions, the High Court may, considering overall circumstances and at the parties’ request, grant modified relief instead of remanding the matter, especially when public safety and practical hardships are concerned. The judgment clarified that balancing natural justice and pragmatic concerns may justify granting reasonable time to vacate but continued occupation will be at tenants’ own risk. The order does not set aside demolition orders but tempers their immediate execution. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Appellants were tenants in a municipal building declared unsafe by a university’s civil engineering report. The report formed the basis for an eviction/demolition order, which was challenged for lack of opportunity to respond. Appellants sought additional time to vacate, which was allowed by the Court, subject to certain conditions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, especially in similar procedural or demolition disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court underscored that non-supply of adverse expert reports before eviction is a procedural irregularity but not always fatal if parties subsequently acquiesce to alternative practical relief.
- Courts may, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction, modify adverse orders to allow reasonable time to vacate, at occupants’ own risk, instead of mandated immediate eviction.
- When tenants accept risk and seek more time due to hardship, courts can balance natural justice with urgent public interest.
- Even if there is a lapse in procedure, courts may forgo remanding if parties prefer time-bound exit rather than continuing litigation.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the basis for eviction/demolition was a structural safety report from JNTU, Kakinada, which was not shared with the tenants for objections.
- Ordinarily, such denial of opportunity would justify remand to allow objections, upholding the principles of natural justice.
- However, on hearing the appellants, the Court accepted their plea that they only required additional time to vacate and mitigate hardship.
- The Court thus exercised discretion, modifying the eviction order to grant six months’ time, subject to continued payment of rent, removal of seals, and placing the risk of continued occupation on the occupants.
- The Court specifically recorded that this modified order did not apply to a tenant who had already vacated the premises.
- The High Court thus balanced strict procedural fairness with practical and equitable relief appropriate to the factual circumstances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- The JNTU Kakinada report forming the basis of eviction was not shared; appellants were denied any opportunity to file objections.
- Given a chance, they could have shown the building was repairable and habitable despite some damage.
- Requested additional time for finding alternative premises to avoid hardship.
Respondent (State/Municipal Corporation):
- Relied on the civil engineering report stating the building had outlived its age and was dangerous, posing great risk to occupants.
Factual Background
The appellants were tenants in a building which the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation declared unsafe and marked for demolition, based on an inspection and report by JNTU Kakinada’s civil engineering department. The report found the building had outlived its usefulness and posed serious risk, particularly to ground floor occupants. The eviction order was challenged on grounds that the report had not been shared or open for objection by tenants. During the appeal, appellants requested more time to vacate to mitigate economic hardship.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment refers to procedural irregularity in not supplying adverse expert reports to affected parties before eviction or demolition and upholds the principle that natural justice generally requires opportunity to object. However, statutory or administrative exigency—here, public safety certified by a technical report—may justify expedited process, with the court reserving discretion to grant equitable relief.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court declined to remand the case for procedural rectification upon parties’ request, instead crafting relief balancing procedural lapse with practical solutions.
- The order specified continued occupation shall be at the occupants’ risk, reflecting individualized equitable remedies in urgent eviction/demolition matters.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms general principles of natural justice and judicial discretion in matters involving procedural irregularity.