Judgment P. Jyothimani, J 1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17. 2007 passed in W.P. No. 21119 of 2007. 2. It appears that the writ petitioners father, one Rathinam, who was working as Superintendent in the Office of the Accountant General, Chennai was allotted a house on rental basis under public quota by the first respondent on 210. 1996. The petitioners father, who was in possession of the said house, died on 30.11.2003 and after his death, the writ petitioner continued to be in possession. The first respondent has issued a notice on 1. 2007 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises, for which an explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 21. 2007. The first respondent is stated to have issued another notice on 5. 2007 and after the notice was issued, the writ petitioner has filed an appeal to the second respondent on 16. 2007 and the same is pending before the second respondent/Government. 3. Having found that the only ground open to the writ petitioner was to have a direction to second respondent/ Government to dispose of the appeal, the learned Single Judge has issued a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the petitioners appeal dated 16. 2007, on merits. However, taking note of the fact that the belongings of the writ petitioner were kept in the house and locked by the first respondent, the learned Judge directed the first respondent to protect the said belongings of the petitioner in the said house without causing any damage, till the appeal is disposed of. It is as against the said order the petitioner has filed the present appeal. 4. Now, it is not in dispute, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents that, by virtue of the interim orders in this writ appeal, the writ petitioner has been put in possession of the property in dispute and not merely the belongings of the petitioner are in the house, but the petitioner is also in active possession. 5. In such view of the matter, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal stands dismissed, however with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants dated 16. 5. In such view of the matter, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal stands dismissed, however with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the appellants dated 16. 2007 against the notice issued by the first respondent on 5. 2007. It is made clear that the appellant shall send a copy of the said appeal dated 16. 2007 to the second respondent/Government within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the second respondent shall decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously in any event within eight weeks thereafter. It is also made clear that till the disposal of the appeal in the manner stated above, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. No costs.