same. In remaining part of 2nd floor, third parties are in occupation and in 1st floor a hospital is running. The petitioner is not the owner of the property situate in 2nd floor and he is only a tenant of the original owner. It was also stated that the petitioner seems to have purchased Terrace rights from one of the directors of the said construction company and constructed third floor unauthorizedly without obtaining necessary permission from them (MCH) and the said floor is being used for running a lodge. Since it is difficult to run a lodge without parking facility and since there is no parking area meant for third floor, the petitioner alleged to have purchased the parking area from one of the directors of the said construction company in the year 2006 which has already been purchased by the unofficial respondents herein. These facts are not stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. With regard to the alleged purchase of basement area and encroached upon the set backs left for parking by respondents 5 to 8 in the said complex is concerned, it was stated that the same has not been made by the unofficial respondents. The original builder proceeded to construct the same and on coming to know of the same, a notice was issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act on 24.06.2000 for removal of the same. Aggrieved by the same, the original builder filed suit in OS.No. 3067 of 2000 on the file of the learned III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It was further stated regarding the blocking of passage that on a perusal of the original sanctioned plan, there is only one entrance to the complex i.e. from the Southern side and there is no other opening as alleged by the petitioner and in fact there is a difference of 7’ to 8’ in level between two complexes. The ground floor of the existing building becomes the Cellar of 21st Century Commercial Complex due to which there cannot be any opening from other sides except from the southern side and question of blocking the passage does not arise. As soon as the authorities found that the parking area has been misused by respondents 5 to 8, Municipal authorities have issued notices to the concerned under Sections 441, 442 and 443 of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad Act and directed to remove the
