W.P. No. 20476 of 2009 in M.P. No. 1 of 2009. Case: Tamilaruvi Manian Vs Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Housing Board and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. No. 20476 of 2009 in M.P. No. 1 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G. Muthukrishnan and P. Wilson |
| Judges | K. Chandru, J. |
| Issue | Housing Board Act - Section 84(1); Right to Information Act; Constitution of India - Articles 12, 14, 226 |
| Judgement Date | June 28, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
K. Chandru, J.
-
Heard both sides.
-
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the third respondent, i.e. Revenue Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai, dated 23.09.2009 and seek to set aside the same. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7689 of 2009, seeking to challenge the order dated 6.4.2009. By the said order, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner that he had violated the term No.3(1) of the lease deed. Hence a notice was given in terms of term No.31.
-
Term No. 3(1) reads as follows:
3. and whereas the terms and conditions of the Lease have been though fit to be laid down in a written agreement, now this Deed of Agreement has been entered into subject to the following conditions:-
(i)The Lease shall be for a period of 11 months only subject to renewal for every 11 months subject to the conditions that the lessee had not violated any of the conditions of the agreement.
-
Likewise, term No.xxxi reads as follows:
"(xxxi)"The tenancy may be terminated by either party without assigning any reason, after giving one month's notice to the other party".
-
In essence the contention of the third respondent was that since the lease deed was not renewed after a period of 11 months, he is not entitled to be continued in the tenancy. Therefore, he was directed to vacate the quarters and hand over possession to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board within 30 days. When the petitioner had challenged the said notice, this court held that the petitioner ought to have approached the Board for renewal of lease. Therefore, after disposing of the writ petition, in paragraph 9, it gave the following directions:
9(i)The petitioner is at liberty to make necessary application for renewal of lease within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(ii) On receipt of such application from the petitioner for renewal of lease, the respondents are directed to consider the same strictly in accordance with law;
(iii) The clause in the impugned show cause notice terminating the lease is set aside;
(iv) The impugned notice shall be treated only as a show cause notice for which the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(v) Until such a final order is passed on the application of the petitioner for renewal of lease, all proceedings arising out of the impugned show cause notice shall be kept in abeyance and until such time, the pettioner shall not be evicted.
(vi) It is clarified that if no application for renewal for lease is made by the petitioner within the stipulated period, the respondents can proceed further on the impugned show cause notice
-
Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the petitioner sent a letter, dated 21.8.2009 giving explanations and also by an another letter on the same day, applied for renewal of lease. Since no reply was forthcoming, he had also sought certain information under the Right To Information Act, i.e. names of persons for whom the houses in the Tower Block were allotted under public allotment, the names of persons who are living on rental basis under public quota, number of years they are living in the said quarters and also details whether they have renewed their lease after expiry of allotment at the interval of every 11 months and apart from Kilpauk Tower Block, in various housing projects of the Housing Board, the names of persons who are living on rental under public quota system. The petitioner also got reply from the Information Officer, dated 28.9.2009. However, the second respondent passed an order, dated 23.09.2009, stating that his request for renewal of lease was not feasible and it was rejected and that no person can claim extension for lease of the Government property as a matter of right. Therefore, he was once again directed to vacate the rental quarters, failing which eviction under Section 84(1) of the Housing Board Act will be initiated. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
-
When the writ petition came up before this court on 24.10.2009, Mr.P.Wilson, the learned Additional Advocate General took notice for the Housing Board and sought time for counter. Since the petitioner was threatened with eviction at any time, this court granted an interim order protecting the continuance of the petitioner in the premises. After several adjournments, on 23.11.2009, a counter affidavit dated 20.11.2009 was filed by the second respondent. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit, dated 26.11.2009 along with an additional typed set of papers containing information furnished by the Information Officer under the RTI Act.
-
It is the case of the petitioner that he was allotted an apartment No.A-16 under Tailors Road scheme at Kilpauk on 10.1.2007. The conditions imposed on the allotment order were scrupulously followed by him. With reference to renewal, such renewal was never insisted in the subsequent years 2008 and 2009. The petitioner was allowed to continue in the said quarters. It is only when the original show cause notice came, the petitioner found that the original allotment was for 11 months' lease. But, on an enquiry, it was found that such a condition was never acted upon by any of the allottees, who were allotted apartments under the public quota system. The petitioner alone was singled out of eviction only because of his views expressed in writings on current political affairs through his articles published in various Tamil weeklies and biweeklies, such as Junior Vikatan, Ananda Vikatan, Kumudam and Kumudam Reporter, etc. Provoked by such articles, the second respondent in order to oblige his political master had issued the show cause notice. At no point of time, the Housing Board requested them to renew the lease. It was claimed that several other persons who are occupying the quarters under the public quota system are continuing to reside for long number of years without any further renewal of lease and without similar condition being insisted upon to evict those persons. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is a clear case of hostile discrimination.
-
In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it was stated that the allegation of malafide is not correct. The petitioner was allotted quarters by converting the public quota as a special case in terms of G.O.(2D) No.170, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 6.12.2006. Pursuant to the G.O., allottment was made in favour of the petitioner by proceedings of the Housing Board, dated 20.12.2006. The petitioner is...
To continue reading
Request your trial