Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner federation had submitted that the statements made, in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, relating to the grant of alternate allotment of space, after the construction of a new building at No.10, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai, to the members of the petitioner federation, may be recorded, while disposing of the writ petition. 3. Paragraphs 3 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent read as follows: "3. I respectfully submit that about nearly 4 decades ago allotments have been made to the writ petitioner Association on rental basis in the building situated in No.10, G.S.T. Road, Guindy for a rent of Rs.68/-per month. At present there are six more Associations functioning in the building on rental basis. I submit that the building at present is in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition. I submit that under those circumstances, the writ petitioner Association along with other Associations has been asked to vacate the building and temporarily shift to SIDCO Branch Office, Guindy. 7. I respectfully submit that it is also to be noted that the writ petitioner has no legal right to insist for the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding. I submit that all the other Associations who attended the meeting on 07.01.2008 and 27.02.2008 have been allotted 100 sq.ft. each at the Branch Office of SIDCO in Guindy Industrial Estate. I submit that the request by the writ petitioner that they should be allotted full floor which is more than 2000 sq.ft. is not accepted and the writ petitioner cannot seek more area than i.e. allotted to the other Associations. It is submitted that the said allotment is only temporary and after the demolition and construction of the new building at No.10, G.S.T. Road, Guindy Industrial Estate, the members of the writ petitioner would be given similar extent of area occupied by them earlier. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for devoid of any merits." 4. In view of the statements made in the paragraphs 3 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the writ petition stands closed, as no further orders are necessary. No costs. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for devoid of any merits." 4. In view of the statements made in the paragraphs 3 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the writ petition stands closed, as no further orders are necessary. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.