VIJAYALAKSHMI GOPALAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has averred that the Flat No.6 Lloyds Estate was initially allotted to her husband late Mr.Gopal on 21.9.1965 and continued in his name until his death on 19.2.1972. On 25.8.1972, she applied to the second respondent seeking the transfer of the premises in her name. Subsequently the premises with all the assets and liabilities was transferred to her name on 24.11.1972. She was in enjoyment of the said premises without any obstruction. She submits that the first respondent issued communication to the effect that the flat, allotted to her, had been sublet and that the said subletting was illegal. In the communication, she was requested to tender an affidavit that she was in lawful possession of the said flat without subletting, within 15.9.1981. She replied that there was no necessity for filing a fresh affidavit as she had already executed an affidavit stating that she was in lawful possession of the premises, on 9.8.1979. She also sent a communication dated 22.9.1981 on the above. Not satisfied with her replies, the communication was once again sent to her questioning her relationship with one Vijayalakshmi. In her affidavit dated 1.9.1979, she had set out clearly that she was the widow of late Gopalan and produced the death certificate to get the transfer from her husband -s name to her name. On 26.2.1981, she issued a reply stating that she was Vijayalakshmi who is the allotee -cum -resident and there was no question of any sub -letting. On 8.1.1982, the first respondent by way of another communication asked her to produce the death certificate of her husband along with the transfer order regarding the allotment in her favour. On submitting to the first respondent that the documents were in the file same had been submitted twice, he informed that he would look into the file of the case. To her shock and surprise, another communication was issued by the first respondent after two years. She had stated in her earlier letter itself, that she being a widow,she was being visited by her sister -in -law for her help and she stays with her for some time. She submits that she is entitled to have visitors and even assuming that her sister -in -law had been continuously staying with her for a long period on her visitation, it would not amount to subletting. Even in that case, the show cause notice should be addressed to her and an explanation should be called from her.

(2.) WHILE so, the second respondent addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Police dated 3.11.1983 requesting for necessary police bandobust to enable the executive staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to evict the petitioner herein/any other occupant in Flat No.6, Lloyds Estate, Madras -14. Aggrieved by the said, impugned order the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.TNHB/ARD/ IX/83, dated 3.11.1983 and quash the same and further direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner of the premises No.P -6 Lloyds Estate, Madras -14.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Kannadasan contended that upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the requirements of Sec.84(2) of the Act have been complied with. In particular, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the facts and circumstances of the instant case will fall under Scc.84(l)(b) of the Act, relating to any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any boarding premises, and not under Sec.84(l)(ii) of the Act, relating to subletting. Therefore, the impugned order is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity.