AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
The petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions are occupants of the various flats under Public Rental Quota Scheme at Mandavelipakkam,
Chennai 28. Admittedly, the flats belonged to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, namely the 2nd respondent herein. In this batch of Writ Petitions,
the petitioners seek to challenge an order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.51, Housing and Urban Development (HB4(1)
Department dated 5.3.2012 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 22.3.2012. The contention raised by the petitioners
was that the Housing Board has constructed residential units. Out of 24 units constructed by them, 12 units are situated at Mandavelipakkam, 6
units at Santhome and another 6 units at Kamarajar Sali. The petitioners were allotted tenements under the rental scheme and they are also paying
rent scrupulously.
During the year 2002, an association of the residents known as Mandavelipakkam Tamil Nadu Housing Board Allotment Residents Welfare
Association filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P.No.36895 of 2002 and certain interim orders were also passed. Thereafter, the issue
was settled and that the members of the association have been paying enhanced rent.
However, once again the 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 18.11.2011 to all the occupants to vacate the premises. Hence, a Writ Petition
was filed in the name of the association represented by its President being W.P.No.27443 of 2011. After notice was issued to the respondents,
the 2nd respondent Housing Board filed a counter affidavit dated nil (September 2011). In the counter, it was stated as follows:
I submit that the age of the building is more than 48 years and the stability of the building is deteriorated due to its age and it is in dilapidated
conditions. By considering the above fact, the Government have taken decision to demolish 27 Board''s Rental quarters constructed during 1963 in
Mandavelipakkam, Chennai, which are in dilapidated condition and now it is proposed to reconstruct the building with latest technology to more
number of units to accommodate more number of public.
However, this Court by order dated 4.1.2012 allowed the Writ Petition and it was held as follows:
There is however force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the impugned notice shows that the
order of eviction of the petitioner have been passed without terminating the lease deed. The petitioner''s members are admittedly in actual
possession of the premises under the valid lease deed executed in their favour, which can only be cancelled in terms of Section 84 of the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961. It is only after the cancellation of the lease deed of expiry of lease, the Housing Board can treat them as
unauthorised occupant of the premises to order eviction, but not prior thereto.
Subsequent to the order passed by this Court, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.51, Housing and Urban Development (HB4(1)
Department dated 5.3.2012. In that, the State Government directed the Housing Board as follows:
The Hon''ble Minister for Housing and Urban Development has announced on the floor of Assembly on 26.8.2011 that the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board will demolish 27 Board''s Rental quarters constructed in the year 1963 in Mandavelipakkam, Chennai, which are in dilapidated condition
and will reconstruct 44 flats in its place at a cost of Rs. 11.80 Crore (excluding the value of the land).
In pursuance of the announcement, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has sent a scheme proposal for construction of
residential flats under LIG, MIG and HIG categories in the land to be made available after demolition of the dilapidated 27 Board''s Rental
Quarters spread over in 6 pockets in Mandavelipakkam. These pockets of land are situated in plot Nos.503, 536, 572, 441, 551 and 12A and
12B. It has been proposed to reconstruct 50 Residential flats (stilt+2 & Stilt+4 floors) in the above said land.
For the successful and early implementation, it has been proposed to implement the scheme in two phases 24 flats will be constructed for re-
accommodating the existent tenants. 26 flats will be constructed under Self-financing scheme for sales for generating required funds for the
construction of flats, proposed both under rental and self-financing categories.
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has requested Government to accord in Principle Administrative Sanction for the
construction of 50 Residential Flats for various categories at Mandavelipakkm, Chennai at a cost of Rs. 11.80 Crores.
The Government after careful examination accept the proposal of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board referred in para 2 and 3
above and hereby accord in Principle Administrative Sanction for construction of 50 Residential Flats for various categories at Mandavelipakkam
at a cost of Rs. 11.80 Crores.
Pursuant to the G.O, the occupants were directed to vacate the flats within 30 days. A reference was made to the G.O passed by the State
Government. Therefore, the petitioners are once again before this Court and this time in their individual capacity and not through the Association.
This Court, when the matter came up on 25.4.2012, directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to take notice
and get instructions. Accordingly, Mr. R. Jeyaseelan, learned Standing Counsel filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
The contention raised by Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioners was that the impugned order was in violation of the earlier
order passed by this Court dated 04.01.2012 and there was no adherence to the procedure contemplated u/s 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing
Board Act. Section 84 of the Act sets out the conditions under which a person can be evicted from the board''s premises. Therefore, he
contended that inasmuch as the buildings are in good conditions and produced certain photographs for the same and also no dues are payable by
the petitioners, the impugned action is invalid. He submitted that the Board should be directed to comply with Section 84 before proceeding to
evict the petitioners.
But, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions. The question of invoking Section 84 of the Act will arise only when the building in
question is intact and the conditions are violated. In the present cases, the buildings were constructed in the year 1963 and due to aging the
Housing Board building is in dilapidated condition and therefore the Board has decided to demolish the houses and reconstruct the flats with
modern technology. Though the provisions of the Rent Control Act will not apply, even assuming that such provision will apply, apart from the
conditions of willful default in making payment and owners'' occupation, the land owner has power to demolish and reconstruct the building and
bona fides of that request cannot be gone into in these Writ Petitions on the basis of the photographs produced by the petitioners. On the other
hand, it is seen that it is not a new offer which the Board is now fixing for the first time and ever in the earlier round of litigation, such a stand was
taken and the G.O has been passed granting administrative sanction to put up a new construction. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the Writ Petitions on the grounds urged by the petitioners.
The question of adhering to the provisions u/s 84 will arise so long as the building stands intact. When the building is sought to be demolished,
invoking Section 84 of the Act cannot be done as it is not the case of violations of conditions of allotment. In fact, the petitioners stand only as
allottees and the allotment is nothing but a licence to occupy the building of the Housing Board and notice has been given for vacating the building.
In the counter in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 9, it was averred as follows:
I respectfully submit that regarding the allegations made in para 5 of the affidavit, that it is true that the eviction notice was issued to all 27
allottees the petitioner''s vide T.O. Letter No. NDR9/1210/2005 dated 16.9.2011 by R.P.A.D. Further the Hon''ble Chief Minister has
announced on the floor of Assembly on 26.8.2011 that they have been proposed to demolish all the 27 houses and put up quality flats in
Mandavelipakkam Scheme.
I respectfully submit that regarding the averments made in para 6 of the affidavit, that the first notice vide letter No. NDR9/1210/2005, dated
16.09.2011 was sent by R.P.A.D and the same was returned by Post Office not received by the allottees. By considering the stability of the
structure and in order to prevent the untoward incidents happening for the livelihood, the Government has decided to demolish the old structure
and proposed to reconstruct with latest infrastructure facilities for the rendering the housing need to more public. I submit that the condition of the
building is in dilapidated condition. Hence in the floor of Assembly it has been announced on 26.8.2011, TNHB will demolish 27 Board''s Rental
Quarters, Mandavelipakkam which are in dilapidated condition and now it is proposed to reconstruct 44 flats (Stilt+2) varying plinth area from
659 to 1075 Sq.ft at the project cost of Rs. 11.80 Crores (excluding the land cost) to accommodate more number of public.
..
I submit that notice has been issued u/s 84 of the Act, dated 18.11.2011 has been challenged in W.P.No.27443/2011. The Hon''ble High
Court has quashed the notice stating that notice u/s 84 cannot be issued to the tenants and given liberty to the respondents to proceed with the
eviction of the petitioner in accordance with law. I submit that this notice dated 22.3.2012 impugned order has been issued for the eviction of the
residential units, not u/s 84 of the Act. This eviction notice for demolition and reconstruction has been issued on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.51,
Housing and Urban Development (HB4(1) Department dated 5.3.2012 wherein, Government has accorded administrative sanction for
construction of 50 residential flats in Mandavelipakkm, Chennai.
The stand of the Housing Board cannot be rejected on the grounds urged by the petitioners. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board also produced similar orders passed by this Court in respect of building demolition in Anna Nagar, wherein the court while
allowing the building to be demolished directed the aggrieved persons to make representation for allotment of the units after reconstruction was
made without giving any positive direction.
In the present cases, Mr. K.S. Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that it will be difficult for them to find any rental
occupation within a period of thirty days. Therefore, 6 months time may be given to the petitioners for looking out for an alternative
accommodation. This Court made it clear that if the petitioners want any discretionary relief, they must file a written affidavit of undertaking to
vacate the premises within the time sought for by them. For this purpose the matter was postponed, without giving any order. But, till date, no such
affidavit of undertaking was forthcoming from the petitioners. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the
petitioners. This Court also finds that there is no illegality in the Government Order impugned in the Writ Petitions. Hence, all the Writ Petitions
stand dismissed. No costs. All Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.