Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, i.e., Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Besant Nagar Division, Chennai, dated 12.7.2012 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in MIG Flat No.M.14/7 (Ground Floor), Besant Nagar, Phase-I Scheme, Chennai in the joint name of the petitioner and the third respondent with necessary recitals protecting the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the property. 2. When the matter came up on 26.7.2012, this court directed notice to be served on Mr.R.Jeyaseelan, learned Standing Counsel for the TNHB. After taking notice, the learned counsel produced a written instructions from the second respondent, dated 27.7.2012. Since this court is not inclined to admit the writ petition, no notice was served on the third respondent who is the husband of the petitioner. 3. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that since she has only the right to stay in the house in question, the question of executing the sale deed in the joint name of the petitioner and the third respondent will not arise. 4. The case of the petitioner was that she was working as a Record Clerk in the Directorate of Municipal Administration. She had applied for allotment of a flat when applications were called for by the first respondent. She was allotted a flat in M.14/7, Ground Floor, Phase-I, known as Nava Bharat Nagar. In terms of the allotment, she had paid Rs.6000/- as an initial payment on 10.10.1984. The third respondent is the husband of the petitioner. He was employed as an Assistant in the Food Corporation of India. In order to get housing loan and as suggested by the third respondent, she had requested the first respondent to transfer the allotment in the name of the third respondent. This was with a view to enable the third respondent to get housing loan from his employer, so that an outright purchase of the property can be made. The petitioner came to know that the third respondent was not faithful to her and was having an illicit intimacy with an another person and also was starting to live separately. This was with a view to enable the third respondent to get housing loan from his employer, so that an outright purchase of the property can be made. The petitioner came to know that the third respondent was not faithful to her and was having an illicit intimacy with an another person and also was starting to live separately. Fearing that he may throw out her, she sent a representation dated 17.2.1995 to the first respondent seeking for re-transfer of the flat in the name of the petitioner. 5. Apprehending the further course of action, she had also filed a suit in O.S.No.104 of 1996 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Judge. The suit was for the grant of permanent injunction against the first and third respondents. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner by a judgment and decree dated 19.4.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent had filed an appeal in A.S.No.197 of 2002 and the matter was tried before the II Additional City Civil Judge. The lower appellate court had partly allowed the appeal by a judgment, dated 07.07.2003 and held as follows : "11. In view of the fact that the suit is pending between the Appellant and his wife, the Housing Board has withheld from issuing the title deed in favour of the first defendant / appellant. Once it is established that the Housing Board flat was originally allotted in favour of Tmt.Senthamarai, plaintiff and later on transferred to in the name of the first defendant / appellant, the entire flat was purchased under outright purchase scheme, the TN Housing Board cannot, withhold the execution of sale deed in favour of the first defendant. There is no legal impediment, after payment of entire amount by the appellant. The injunction granted against the D2 not to execute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant by the Housing Board is not sustainable. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed. The Injunction granted against the second defendant is set aside." 6. The petitioner aggrieved by the same had filed a second appeal before this court in S.A.No.843 of 2004. The second appeal was dismissed by a judgment dated 08.12.2011 and the order passed by the lower appellate court in A.S.No.197 of 2002 was confirmed. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed. The Injunction granted against the second defendant is set aside." 6. The petitioner aggrieved by the same had filed a second appeal before this court in S.A.No.843 of 2004. The second appeal was dismissed by a judgment dated 08.12.2011 and the order passed by the lower appellate court in A.S.No.197 of 2002 was confirmed. This court also found that the findings of the lower appellate court was that the third respondent had paid the entire amount after availing the housing loan from the employer and therefore, he was entitled to get the sale deed in his favour. The third respondent was permitted to approach the housing board to execute the sale deed in respect of the flat in question. Undaunted by the order passed in the second appeal, the petitioner had preferred a special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.6718 of 2012. The SLP was dismissed by an order dated 22.02.2012. It was subsequent to the order passed by the Supreme Court, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 10.4.2012 to the first respondent stating that the sale deed should be executed in the joint name of the petitioner and the third respondent and protection should be given for the possession and enjoyment of the property. 7. She had also filed a writ petition being W.P.No.12899 of 2012 before this court seeking for execution of the sale deed in the joint name of the petitioner and the third respondent. That writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 4.5.2012 with a direction to consider her representation. It is pursuant to the direction issued, the petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry by the second respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent had passed an order holding that in the light of the order passed by this court, wherein a direction was given to issue the sale deed in favour of the third respondent and the petitioner was only having the right to reside in the said property till her life time, the sale deed cannot be executed in her name. 8. This stand of the respondents cannot be found fault with. 8. This stand of the respondents cannot be found fault with. The petitioner having exhausted the remedy upto the Supreme Court and having failed to upset the order of the lower appellate court, cannot once again start the second round of litigation seeking the relief which he had failed to get in the proper appeal. So long as her interest is limited of continuing in the property and there being no ownership claim established, the present impugned order cannot be found fault with. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.