A DAKSHAYINI Vs. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 29.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.55 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 06.02.2002 passed in O.S.No.288 of 1992 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants and the materials placed on record go to show that the suit property had been allotted to K.V.Raman for his occupation on a monthly rent by the defendant Housing Board and it is found that as per the case of the plaintiff, he being the cousin brother of the allottee K.V.Raman, lived along with K.V.Raman and it is stated further that it is only the plaintiff, who has been paying the rent to the defendant Housing Board on behalf of the allottee and it is the case of the plaintiff that after the expiry of the allottee's wife in 1987, the allottee went astray and left the flat voluntarily without providing any information about his whereabouts and according to the plaintiff, he has also been waiting on the fond hope that the allottee would return to the Flat and join him. It is his further case that he being the cousin brother of the allottee is continuing to occupy the suit property originally allotted to K.V.Raman. It is further seen that the defendant, on coming to know that the allottee is not in occupation of the property demised to him, had issued a letter to the allottee alleging that he had sub-let the premises to the plaintiff and his family members and it is only the plaintiff and his family members, who are residing in the suit property and not the allottee and accordingly, directed him show cause notice as to why the allotment issued in his favour should not be cancelled and he be evicted from the suit property. It is found that to the said letter dated 09.08.1990 issued by the defendant and marked as Ex.A6, the allottee K.V.Raman has not sent any response and on the other hand, it is only the plaintiff, who had responded to the same by way of a letter dated 27.08.1990 marked as Ex.A7 and in the same, it has been stated by the plaintiff that the allottee had left the premises without any information and as he is the cousin brother of the allottee is continuing to occupy the premises and paying the rent without any default and accordingly, requested the defendant Housing Board to change the allotment in his favour. With reference to the abovesaid request, it is found that the defendant Housing Board had directed the plaintiff to show proof of his relationship with the original allottee as putforth by him and in this connection, it is found that a certificate has come to be forwarded by the plaintiff issued by one Dr.Vasudevan holding that the allottee and the plaintiff are the brothers and that, he knew them for several years. However, the abovesaid certificate was not entertained by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and accordingly, finding that the plaintiff has no authority to remain in the premises and as the allottee had sub-let the premises without any authority to the plaintiff and his family members, accordingly, issued the impugned notice dated 05.01.1991 directing the plaintiff to vacate the said premises as his occupation of the same is an unauthorised one and the said notice has come to be marked as Ex.A10. To the same, it is found that the plaintiff has sent a letter and also made representations to the higher authorities and however, as the defendant Housing Board did not accept his case, accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff had chosen to lay the suit for the reliefs of Declaration and Permanent Injunction.