IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 12.07.2011 Coram : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 15610 of 2011 M.Vivekanandam ...Petitioner Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by its Chairman 493, Anna Salai Chennai-35. ...Respondent PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to remove the seal fixed on Flat No.M-2 in the Foreshore Estate area allotted to him under the TNGSRHS Scheme and to permit the petitioner to occupy the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ravichandran For Respondent : Ms.P.Kavitha Government Advocate O R D E R 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar paa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board 493, Anna Salai Chennai-35. 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.41364 1 cc to Mr.A.Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr.No.40882 WP.NO.15610 OF 2011 KK {CO} TP/20.7.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/