Judgment :- COMMON ORDER Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent in letter No. 19919/Vee Va 2(2)/2002-1 dated 19-6-2002, rejecting her request to allot Flat No.1F at Old Tower Block, Nandanam in her favour, which was allotted in favour of her deceased husband, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 7854/2003 to quash the same on various grounds. 2. In Writ Petition No. 8288/2003, the very same petitioner challenges Resolution No.11.04 dated 21-7-97 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board and also prays appropriate direction to the Housing Board to transfer the allotment in favour of the petitioner as the dependent wife of the original allottee late V.N. Gangadharan. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband V.N. Gangadharan was allotted a rental housing flat vide letter No. P1/18178/78, dated 11-3-78 bearing No. 1-F at Old Tower Block, Nandanam. Pursuant to the order of allotment by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, a lease deed was entered into between V.N. Gangadharan and the Board in the year 1978. V.N. Gangadharan had been living in the tenanted premises along with the petitioner being the wife and other family members from the year 1978 onwards and he had been paying the rent regularly without any default. Her husband V.N. Gangadharan passed away on 5-11-2000 and she had intimated the said fact to the respondents on 17-2-2001 along with copies of Death Certificate and Legal Heirship Certificate. By letter dated 17-2-2002, she had requested the respondents to transfer the allotment in her name. Without acceding to her request, all of a sudden, on 7-5-2002, the respondents delivered to her an order of cancellation of allotment and order of eviction dated 16-4-2002 stating that she was in un-authorised occupation of the premises. Against the said order, she preferred an appeal to the Government, first respondent herein. Since she was facing threat of dispossession every day, a suit was filed as O.S.No. 2774/2002 before the City Civil Court challenging the order dated 16-4-2002 and the same is pending. At the time of filing of the suit, her appeal was pending before the first respondent. By the impugned order dated 19-6-2002, the first respondent rejected her appeal without assigning any reason. At the time of filing of the suit, her appeal was pending before the first respondent. By the impugned order dated 19-6-2002, the first respondent rejected her appeal without assigning any reason. The first respondent has merely referred to a Resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board dated 21-7-97 bearing No. 11.04 and held that in view of the said Resolution, she will not be permitted to continue in the premises; hence the above writ petition. 4. On direction, Mr. R. Chandrasekaran, learned Govt., Advocate, takes notice for first respondent and Mr. D. Veerasekaran for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the Government and Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 6. The point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the Resolution No.11.04 dated 21-7-97 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is valid; and whether the Government was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner merely on the basis of the said Resolution even though the petitioner is the dependent of the original tenant, namely, late Gangadharan? 7. In view of the question posed for consideration, I have carefully verified Resolution No.11.04 dated 21-7-97 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Before this, Resolution No.34 was in existence. It is seen that as per the earlier Resolution No.34 dated 24-2-81, after the death of the original allottee, the allotment can be transferred in the name of his/her wife/husband or son or daughter, if they do not own a house. The said resolution was in force from 1981. By virtue of the said resolution, in the event of death of the original allottees, the legal heirs of the allottees were permitted to continue in occupation forever. Considering the fact that there are less number of houses/flats available with the Housing Board against more number of demand for allotment, the Housing Board reviewed the earlier resolution and passed a new Resolution namely Resolution No. 11.04 on 21-7-97 not to transfer the lease rights to the legal heirs of the original allottee. To put it clear, according to the new Resolution, in case of death of the original allottee, the legal heirs cannot be permitted to continue in occupation of the house/flat stands in the name of the original allottee. To put it clear, according to the new Resolution, in case of death of the original allottee, the legal heirs cannot be permitted to continue in occupation of the house/flat stands in the name of the original allottee. It is further seen that if they want an allotment, it is for them to make an application and stand in the queue for their turn. Based on the resolution, the Housing Board as well as the Government of Tamil Nadu rejected the claim of several persons who continued in the allotment even after the death of the original allottee. Those orders have been challenged before this Court by the aggrieved persons. Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has brought to my notice several orders passed by this Court upholding the rejection order either passed by the Housing Board or by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In W.P.No.12349/2001 dated 9-7-2001, while considering the very same Resolution 11.04 dated 21-7-97, P. Shanmugam, J., after observing that since the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has taken a policy decision not to permit the legal representatives to continue and allot the houses to the legal representatives and the said policy decision has got reasonable nexus with the object of providing houses to various persons who are waiting for the allotment, rejected similar claim made by the petitioner therein and dismissed his writ petition. The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench (N.K. Jain and P. Thangavel, JJ) in Writ Appeal No. 1346/2001 dated 3-8-2001. Expressing similar view in W.P.No.19397 of 99 dated 8-12-99, K. Govindarajan, J., has dismissed similar writ petition. The said order was also confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 516/2000 dated 31-3-2000 (N.K. Jain and P.Thangavel, JJ). Again, in Writ Petition No.20060/99 dated 20-12-99, Govindarajan, J., after referring to the policy of the Housing Board and the rejection order of the Government, dismissed similar writ petition. The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 357/2000 dated 22-3-2000. Again, in W.P.No. 20687/99 dated 25-4-2000 P. Shanmugam, J., rejected similar view which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1388/2000 dated 25-8-2000 (N.K. Jain and Raviraja Pandian, JJ). In W.P.No. 18756/2000 dated 7-11-2000 S. Jagadeesan, J., while accepting the resolution of the Housing Board and the order of the Government, dismissed the said writ petition. 8. Again, in W.P.No. 20687/99 dated 25-4-2000 P. Shanmugam, J., rejected similar view which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1388/2000 dated 25-8-2000 (N.K. Jain and Raviraja Pandian, JJ). In W.P.No. 18756/2000 dated 7-11-2000 S. Jagadeesan, J., while accepting the resolution of the Housing Board and the order of the Government, dismissed the said writ petition. 8. I am satisfied that since the Housing Board after taking note of all material aspects, namely, less number of houses available for allotment, more number of persons waiting for allotment, a policy decision has been taken not to permit the legal representatives to continue and allot the houses to legal representatives after the demise of the original allottee, the said policy decision has got reasonable nexus with the object of providing houses to various persons who are waiting for allotment and in the light of the policy decision, the same cannot be characterised as unjust or improper or contrary to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. On the other hand, in the light of the fact that only few hundreds of houses on rental basis are available for allotment and of the fact that more people are waiting for their turn of allotment, I hold that the said resolution/policy decision is valid and got reasonable nexus with the object of providing houses to various persons who are waiting for allotment. The contrary argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. For the same reasons, the impugned letter of the Government dated 19-6-2002 rejecting her request cannot be interfered. As observed earlier, in the light of the resolution and the policy decision of the Housing Board, the Government is fully justified in rejecting her request. 9. It is relevant to note that though the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.2774/2002 before the 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court challenging the cancellation order dated 16-4-2002, admittedly, the petitioner could not succeed in getting any interim order. Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has informed that in the absence of any prohibitory order, pursuant to the cancellation order dated 16-4-2002, the petitioner was evicted from the premises and the same was locked by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Housing Board has informed that in the absence of any prohibitory order, pursuant to the cancellation order dated 16-4-2002, the petitioner was evicted from the premises and the same was locked by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 10. In the light of what is stated above, I hold that the Resolution No. 11.04 dated 21-7-97 is valid and the same is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act. The said policy decision of the Housing Board, in the absence of any other material cannot be interfered by this Court. The consequential order of the Government rejecting the request of the petitioner is also valid and there is no ground for interference. Both the Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps., are closed.