Structural instability of housing board flats justifies eviction under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, with no right to alternate accommodation for allottees.

ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for records relating to the Order passed by the 1st Respondent vide Letter No. 4699524/Vi.va.3(2)/2023-5 dated 03.10.2023 and the Order passed by the 4th Respondent vide Letter No. Va.Vaa.Pi.2/13312/2015 dated 01.06.2022 and the Order passed by the 5th respondent Letter No. P.Pa.Ko./0388/2016-5 dated 12.06.2024 and quash the same, and consequently forbear the Respondents from evicting the Petitioner from the allotted property at C-2, MIG Flats, TNHB Pattinapakkam, Chennai without following or contrary to the procedure and provisions under Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961.

1. There are 13 writ petitions in this batch of Writ Petitions. The petitioners are allottees of the Tamil Housing Boardflats at three locations: (i) Pattinapakkam, Chennai, (ii) Cox Square, Chennai and (iii) Lloyds Colony, Chennai. This order is hence divided into three parts. The first part deals with the allottees of flats at Pattinapakkam, the second at Cox Square and the third at Lloyds Colony.

2. As regards the Writ Petitions dealing with allottees of flats at Pattinapakkam, the details of the units allotted to each petitioner and the relief sought for in the respective Writ Petitions are tabulated below:

3. The common contentions of the petitioners as advanced by Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing on their behalf is as follows:

(i) The land in which the Pattinappakkam Housing Board tenements are now situated were originally acquired by the Madras Collector for the Madras City Improvement Trust from a Temple as well as from few individuals.

(ii) The purpose of acquisition was rehabilitation of surplus families from the slums.

(iii) It was during the tenure of Chief Minister K. Kamaraj that the Pattinapakkam Housing Board tenements were constructed using a specialized building technique quite different from the methodology utilized for normal city dwellings.

(iv) Over the years, the petitioners have been residing in those tenements and have been remitting rent and other charges.

(v) The authorities have been entirely negligent in maintaining the structures despite collecting maintenance charges.

(vi) Despite the fact that the petitioners had been complying with all the requirements towards rent and other charges, there had been unfair measures adopted by the respondents towards enhancement of the rent which had been the subject matter of manifold litigation.

(vii) The litigation had been triggered by notices issued by the authorities seeking to evict the allottees from the Housing Board alleging non-payment of arrears of rent and enhanced rent.

(viii) The eviction notices had put forth a false case that the buildings were structurally weak and dilapidated, requiring immediate demolition to secure the safety of the inmates and the public in the area.

(ix) W.P. No. 6823 of 2019