Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 3212
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. JYOTHIMANI
M. Vivekanandam
Versus
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by its Chairman
Writ Petition No. 15610 of 2011
Decided on : 12-07-2011
For the Petitioner:A. Ravichandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kavitha, Government Advocate.
Unjust sealing of rental quarters without due process of law is not permissible, especially when the occupant has been allowed to continue in possession after retirement.
Headnote:
Seal Removal - Rental Quarters - The court directed the respondent to remove the seal from the rental quarters occupied by the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to occupy the flat, while also permitting the respondent to take appropriate eviction action following due process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired individual, had been occupying a rental quarters since 1988. The respondent suddenly sealed the flat, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking removal of the seal and permission to occupy the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's action of sealing the premises without following due process of law was unjustified, especially considering the petitioner's continued occupation after retirement. The court directed the removal of the seal and allowed the petitioner to occupy the flat, while permitting the respondent to initiate eviction proceedings following due process of law.
Issues: Unjust sealing of rental quarters, petitioner's right to occupy the premises after retirement, lack of due process in eviction actions by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unjust sealing of the rental quarters without due process, the petitioner's continued occupation after retirement, and the lack of opportunity given to the petitioner before sealing the premises.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to remove the seal from the rental quarters and allow the petitioner to occupy the flat, while also permitting the respondent to take appropriate eviction action following due process of law.
1. Ms.P.Kavitha, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The writ petitioner is stated to have been allotted a rental quarters in M-2 MIG Apartment in Foreshore Estate in 1988, as a Special Case and the petitioner is stated to have been in occupation of the same and he has also retired from service in the year 2007. However, according to the petitioner, even after retirement, he has been allowed to be continue in possession and like him many other retired persons are also in possession of the rental quarters in the same block paying rent.
3. On a direction from this Court, today, learned Government Advocate has stated, on instructions, that the petitioner has paid rent as of today and there is no arrears.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the flat occupied by the petitioner has been suddenly sealed by the respondent and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition for a direction to remove the seal fixed in Flat No.M-2 in the Foreshore Estate and direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to occupy the same.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was away from his house by locking the premises, an over-lock has been put by the respondent-Housing Board, which has forced the petitioner to approach this Court. It is also seen that the petitioner has sent many representations, including the one made on 11.12.2009 and for which, there is no reply. The valuables belonging to the petitioner are present in the said premises.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that if after the retirement of the petitioner in the year 2007, he has been allowed to be continue in possession, the conduct of the respondent in over-locking the premises without giving opportunity and following the due process of law to evict the petitioner, if the portion is required for the purpose of demolition and construction of building, is un-known to law.
7. In result, this writ petition is disposed of, with direction against the respondent to remove the seal fixed in Flat No.M-2 in the Foreshore Estate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioner to occupy the flat making it clear that it is open to the respondent to take appropriate action for the purpose of evicting the petitioner by following the procedure established by law. Consequently, connected M.P.No. 1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.
