M.M.D.A. COLONY RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCAITION (DEF GROUPS), REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT R. PANNEERSELVAM, CHENNAI Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Association has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to follow the due process of law as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961 before passing the final order in respect of the petitioners' community hall, situate at MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam.

(2.) THE petitioner, a registered Association claimed to have taken leasehold right of the community hall owned by the respondent Housing Board for one year and it was renewed periodically at revised rents upto 1.4.1993. When the petitioner sought for renewal for the lease 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998, the same was negatived. In that context, the petitioner fled W.P.NO: 6384 of 1993 seeking for issue of writ of mandamus to extend the period from 1.4.1993 on usual terms and conditions. Based on interim orders, the petitioner was allowed to run the community hall without any interference. The writ petition was dismissed, but liberty was given to the petitioner -Association to move the respondent for lease. The petitioners' request had been negatived. The third respondent in and by his letter dated 22.10.2000 directed the petitioner Association to hand over the community hall. The petitioner once again filed W.P.No.19079 of 2000 which the respondents resisted. Finally, the writ petition was dismissed and W.A.No.1746 of 2001 preferred against the order in the writ petition was also dismissed.

(3.) THE second respondent requested the petitioner to to run the community hall upto 31.3.2002 on a revised rent, while making it clear that the petitioner has to hand over the community hall on or before 1.4.2002. A resolution has been passed by the Housing Board which has not been communicated. The petitioner had remitted the enhanced rent with retrospective effect. The respondents virtually made an attempt to break open the lock and removed the infrastructure facilities, furniture, utensils and other items kept in the hall. It is contended that the respondents have to act in terms of the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act and they cannot forcibly dispossess the petitioner. There has been exchange of notices and telegrams and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. It is further stated that the first respondent assured to renew the lease upto 31.11.2000 and the petitioner was made to believe and therefore the petitioner paid rents at the revised rate.