IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA AND WMP NO. 2561 OF 2025 D.Sridhar ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Represented By Its Chairman, Cmda Building, E And C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai

600040.

2. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Represented By The Manager, Marketing And Services, No.8 Dr.Muthulakshmi Road, Adyar, Chennai 600020.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent contained in the impugned proceeding vide Letter No. AL5/100425/2013 dated 16.12.2024 quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Flat No. 25/08 in 2nd floor in 208 MIG Flats, Sholinganallur Phase III.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Karthikeyan Anbazhagan For Respondent(s): Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel (TNHB) ORDER The petitioner seeks to quash the demand made by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.12.2024 in and by which the 2^nd respondent had demanded that the petitioner pay an additional sum of Rs.12,69,936/-, obtain no objection from the bank and thereafter get the sale deed executed.

2. The brief facts which have culminated in the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:-

3. The respondent board had issued a notification dated 30.08.2012 inviting application for the allotment of residential flats under a self- financing scheme at Sholinganallur on a lot basis. The total sale consideration for a flat was fixed at a sum of Rs.42,60,000/-. The petitioner would submit that he had paid the entire amount in installments on various occasions between 27.12.2012 and 19.11.2017. The receipt of which has also been acknowledged by the respondent board.

4. As per the terms of the sale agreement dated 09.10.2015 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent board, the construction of the flat was to be completed within a period of 24 months from the date of allotment and possession was to be handed over by 01.10.2015. However, the respondent had failed to deliver the flat within the stipulated time frame which was a clear breach of the terms of the agreement.

5. The petitioner’s contention is that as per the terms of the agreement the payments were to be made on various stages of the construction and the last installment was to be paid either on the date specified as the due date or when the flat is ready for occupation, whichever is later. The terms of the agreement further stipulate that in the case of default interest was to be paid on the delayed payment. The agreement reiterated the terms of the allotment by stating that the flat will be ready within a period of 24 months.

6. The petitioner would contend that, since the last payment is due on the date specified as the due date or the date on which the flat is ready for occupation, whichever is later, interest can be levied only after the flat is ready for occupation. Further, the respondent board had not maintained the schedule for completing the construction. The petitioner had repeatedly requested the respondent board to hand over possession and had also personally visited the site and found several defects in the construction all of which he had shared with the respondent board. On 17.08.2018, he had requested the respondent board to rectify the defects and hand over possession of the flat. However, no action was taken by them. Once again by a letter dated 07.12.2017, he had pointed out the defects and called upon the board to rectify the same and hand over possession. After receiving this representation on 22.02.2018, they came forward to hand over the flat. However, the petitioner refused to take possession as there were several defects in the construction. The respondent board thereafter promised to rectify the defects and requested the petitioner to take