DR S ARUMUGHAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents, their officers and men from interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment or evicting the petitioner from the flat B-1 in Lloyds Estate. Lloyds Road, Madras-14 and further to direct the 2nd respondent to allot the said flat on rental basis to the petitioner under the Public Quota and render justice.

(2.) The petitioner before me was an Additional Director, Animal Husbandry Department. On 29.10.1984, the Government directed the 2nd respondent-Tamil Nadu Housing Board to allot "A" type flat at B-1, Lloyds Estate to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was allotted a flat and he entered into a rental agreement with the 2nd respondent-Board. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner was periodically addressing the respondents for allotment of a house to him on rental basis under the Public Quota System, inasmuch as he does not own a house at Madras and that after retirement he should continue to stay at Madras to take medical treatment. It is stated that in spite of several letters, his request was not favourably considered. The petitioner retired from service on 30.9.1987. His occupation of the said premises, after his retirement was periodically extended by the Government and finally two more months was granted from 31.8.1989 to 31.10.1989. By the last letter of the Government dated 19.9.1989 the petitioner was informed by the Government that he is permitted to retain the apartment for two months from 31.8.1989 on payment of rent last paid by him, while he was in service. It is necessary to state at this stage that the 2nd respondent-Board gave a notice to the petitioner during May, 1989 that is on 29.5.1989 to the following effect:-

(3.) It is alleged in the affidavit that the flats are all owned by the Housing Board and it enters into the rental agreements and collects the rents. The Government directs the Housing Board to allot certain percentage of houses to Government servants as per orders issued by the Government from time to time and it is alleged that though the petitioner has been allotted the flat by the Government as per the Government directions, he is still a tenant under the 2nd respondent-Housing Board. It is stated that it is only the Housing Board that can take steps to evict the petitioner and not the Government. It is alleged that the Government, therefore, cannot issue any directions to vacate the petitioner from the premises on the ground that he has retired from service, inasmuch as the flat is not a Government building but is owned by statutory corporation. The petitioner refers to certain instances in which action has been taken by the Government allotting the flat under the Public Quota System. Instances have been quoted by the petitioner during 1987 and 1988. On this ground the petitioner alleges that there is hostile treatment in his case and the Principles of natural justice and the rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated. The petitioner alleges that Chapter XI of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 deals with the power of the Board to evict persons from Board premises. The petitioner refers to Section 84 (1) of the Act and alleges that in this case, the procedure contemplated under Section 84 of the Act has not been followed. It is also stated in the affidavit that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to evict the petitioner from the premises, without giving a notice. The petitioner alleges that the procedure contemplated under Section 84 of the Act has not been followed in this case and the power has been exercised arbitrarily asking him to vacate the premises. It is also stated that Section 86 of the Act confers the right to appeal to the Government against the order passed under Section 84 and inasmuch as no order has been passed under Section 84 of the Act, the petitioner has been denied the right of appeal to the Government.