N BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU; MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN; DEPUTY SECRETARY (REVENUE) TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD; EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIT NAGAR RENOVATION PLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner ; Mr.P.Chinnadurai, learned Government Advocate accepting notice for the first respondent and Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.V.Ananthamurthy, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondents 2 to 4.

(2.) The petitioner seeks for quashing the order of the 3rd respondent dated 23.08.2016 which is an Eviction Order passed under section 84[2] of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner was not a licensee/allottee of the house in question ; but it was his mother. The petitioner's mother is no more. It appears that the petitioner filed an application for transfer of allotment in his favour. This request has been rejected and it appears that the said order was served by affixture as it is alleged in the impugned notice that the premises has been kept locked for three months and intended to be used for commercial purpose. After the impugned notice, the petitioner's brother made a representation for cancellation of the same. But, nevertheless, the Board did not accede to the request for cancellation of the Eviction Notice, but granted six months time to vacate the premises. This has been followed by a representation by the petitioner's brother who is an advocate, addressed to the Deputy Secretary [Revenue], Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 01.09.2016.