Judgment :- With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the above writ petition, are set out below:- a. Admittedly, the petitioners late husband Velladurai Pandiyan, as evident from the orders, dated 10. 1975 of the Government, was directed to be allotted with a Housing Board Flat on a rental basis. He occupied flat No.N1, Lloyds Colony, Royapettah, Chennai-14 as a tenant. He died on 15. 1987. After his death, his legal heirs, namely, his wife, the petitioner herein and another daughter continue to occupy the said flat. While so, the second respondent issued a notice, dated 9. 2007 purported to be under Section 84(2) of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) calling upon the petitioners daughter Amutha Jayachandran to explain as to why an order of eviction should not be passed since they are in occupation of the said flat without proper permission of the Housing Board after the death of the original allottee and they have not paid the rent regularly. An explanation was submitted by the petitioners daughter, wherein, it was stated that the they have paid the rents and the flat is being occupied by the legal heirs of the original allottee. It was also stated that the petitioner is aged about 77 years and sought for transfer of tenancy in the name of the legal heirs. But rejecting the said request, the second respondent passed an order, dated 11. 2007 under Section 84(4) of the Act directing the eviction. 3. Being aggrieved by that the petitioners daughter preferred an appeal to the first respondent under Section 86 of the Act. The appeal was also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by that the above writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard both. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent called for an explanation under Section 84(2) of the Act and after receiving the explanation, he had not conducted any enquiry or give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided under Section 84(4) of the Act. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is violative of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 84 (4) of the Act. 6. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is violative of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 84 (4) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel in support of his contention based reliance on an order, dated 10. 1997 passed in W.A.No.1215 of 1997, wherein, the Division Bench, in similar circumstances, considered the effect of denial of personal hearing under Section 84 of the Act and held that the order of eviction passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing is bad. While setting aside the eviction order, the Division Bench directed the Housing Board to conduct a fresh enquiry by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent fairly submitted that as contemplated under Section 84(4) of the Act an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner but unfortunately, such an opportunity had not been given. The learned counsel further submitted that the allotment of a Housing Board apartment/flat on rental basis will come to an end on termination of such tenancy or on the death of the allottee and that the legal heirs of the original allottee cannot claim as a matter of right for the continued occupation of the allotted premises. The learned counsel submitted that the Housing Board has passed a Resolution No.11.04, dated 27. 1997 whereby the Board decided not to transfer the leasehold right to the legal heirs of the original allottee and such the resolution came to be challenged before this Court but this Court in a number of cases had upheld the validity of the resolution. 8. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel based reliance on an order, dated 11. 2008 passed in W.A.No.1445 of 2007. In the said decision, the First Bench of this Court considered the similar question in the light of the earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court and held that the said resolution of the Board is valid. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner though may be the legal heir of the original allottee has no right to remain in the said premises after the death of the original allottee. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. In view of the order, dated 11. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner though may be the legal heir of the original allottee has no right to remain in the said premises after the death of the original allottee. 9. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. In view of the order, dated 11. 2008 passed in W.A.No.1445 of 2007, the other orders passed by the various Division Bench of this Court and the resolution passed by the Housing Board having been upheld as valid, it is not open to the petitioner to seek as a matter of right to continue to be in possession of the flat which was allotted to the deceased husband of the petitioner. But however, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent before passing the order of eviction had not conducted any personal enquiry as contemplated under Section 84(4) of the Act. "Section 84(4) of the Act reads as follows:- 84. Power to evict persons from Board Premises:-(4) Any written statement put in by such person and document produced in pursuance of such notice shall be filed with the records of the case, and such person shall be entitled to appear in the proceedings either in person or by pleader." 11. A reading of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that if any written statement is filed by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued, the petitioner is entitled to appear in the proceedings either in person or through pleader, which shows that affording an opportunity for personal hearing is mandatory. The Division Bench has also held that before passing an order of eviction, personal hearing is a must. Therefore, this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, without going into the other merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside but liberty is given to the second respondent to pass orders afresh after affording an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 84(4) of the Act. Such exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till such time, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs.