P.MANICKAVASAGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was employed as Road Inspector in the year 1991, was allotted a flat by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Madurai Ellis Nagar Scheme bearing flat No.H-1219 on outright purchase basis. The tentative price of the flat was fixed at Rs.1,45,000/-. An agreement to the said effect was entered into on 28.06.1991. Admittedly, pursuant to the allotment order, the petitioner got possession of the flat on 25.06.1991. Except the payment of a sum of Rs.6,000/-, the petitioner did not make any payment either towards the price of the flat allotted to him or towards the maintenance charges. As he was in the government service, he had been issued A and B certificates for availing housing loan. But the petitioner was not able to get housing loan from his employer and he did not pay the price of the flat by making private arrangement and also failed to seek conversion of the allotment into one of an allotment on hire purchase basis or allotment on rental basis.

(2.) WHILE so, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board authorities came to know that the writ petitioner after having obtained possession of the flat, had let out the flat to others and had been receiving rent, but failed to make payment, took steps for the eviction and recovery of possession of the flat and also for recovery of rent during the period of his occupation equivalent to the rent collected from the other allottees on rental basis. Since the petitioner did not positively respond, the respondents 1 to 4 took coercive steps for retrieving possession and thus the Housing Board officials were able to take back possession of the above said flat allotted to the petitioner on 30.12.1996 after cancelling such allotment. The petitioner was served with notices for payment of the amount arrived at as rent for the period of his occupation. But the petitioner failed to do so. Consequent orders were also passed by the 4th and 5th respondents for deduction of a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. The said orders of the respondents 3 to 5 respectively are challenged in the writ petition.

(3.) MR .N.A.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to project the case of the petitioner as if he had acted promptly within one month from the date of getting possession of the flat by issuing a letter to the Housing Board authorities informing them of his inability to avail the housing loan and that even thereafter the Tamil Nadu Housing Board simply slept over their right without cancelling the allotment and thus relieving the petitioner of his liability to pay the price of the flat. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the copy of a letter dated 26.08.1991 addressed to Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 016, which is found at page No.13 of the typed set of papers.