Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice issued to the petitioner for vacating the premises leased out to the petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed by Mandavelipakkam Tamil Nadu Housing Board Allotment Residents Welfare Association through its Secretary. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent being the owner of the flats, allotted those flats on rental basis to the petitioner under the public rental quota scheme and the members of the petitioner association is residing in the said units as tenants since its construction. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 2002, a decision was taken by the Board to increase the rental of the flats. The said decision was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No. 36895 of 2002. This Court granted stay, but subsequently, the matter was settled and the members of the petitioners association started paying the enhanced rent. 4. It was on 19.11.2011, all the members of the petitioners association received notice calling upon them to vacate and deliver the possession of the flats in their occupation to the housing board for the purpose of demolition being in dilapidated condition. 5. The case of the petitioner is that all the flats are in good condition and there is no semblance of any structural damage to the buildings warranting any demolition. 6. Even though the challenge in the writ petition is related the decision of the Board to demolish the buildings, the copy of the resolution has not been placed on record, for want of availability. 7. The writ petition is contested by the second respondent by filing a counter, wherein, a specific stand has been taken that the conditions of the buildings is in dilapidated condition, therefore, in the floor of Assembly, it was announced by the Honourable Chief Minister that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board will demolish 27 Boards rental quarters, Mandavelipakkam, being in dilapidated condition, and 44 new flats would be reconstructed with varying plinth area from 659 to 1075 sq.ft. at the project cost of Rs.11.80 crores so as to accommodate more number of public. 8. at the project cost of Rs.11.80 crores so as to accommodate more number of public. 8. It is also the stand of the second respondent that the buildings was constructed in the year 1963, therefore, the Government has decided to demolish the existing buildings to reconstruct with latest infrastructure facilities and also to raise more number of units for the public due to increasing demand of accommodation of general public in the city. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned notice firstly on the ground that the reason given in the notice is non existence as the buildings is not in dilapidated condition. Therefore, the decision to demolish the buildings is nothing but arbitrary exercise of power which is hit under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The petitioner also challenged the impugned notice on the ground that the impugned notice is in violation of Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961, which reads as under:- 84. Power go Evict Certain Persons from Board Premises:- (1) If the competent authority is satisfied - (a) that the person authorized to occupy any Board premises has - (i) not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of such premises for a period of more than two months; or (ii) sublet without the permission of the Board, the whole or any part of such premises; or (iii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms, express or implied, under which he is authorised to occupy such premises; or (b) that any person is in unauthorized occupation of any Board premises, the competent authority may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, by notice served (i) by registered post or (ii) by affixing a copy of it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of such premises or (iii) in such other manner as may be prescribed, order that the person authorized to occupy as well as any other person who may be in occupation of the whole or any part of the premises shall vacate them within one month of the date of service of the notice. (2) Before an order under sub-section (1) is made against any person, the competent authority shall inform the person, by notice in writing and served in the manner provided for service of notice under sub-section (1) of the grounds for which the proposed order is to be made and give him a reasonable opportunity for tendering an explanation and producing evidence, if any, and to show cause why such order should not be made within a period to be specified in such notice. (3) The competent authority may, on application, grant extension of the period specified in such notice on such terms as to payment and recovery of the amount claimed in the notice as he deems fit. (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. (5) If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub section (1), the competent authority may evict that person from and take possession of the premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary. (6) If a person, who has been ordered to vacate any premises under sub – section (1) or (iii) of clause (a) of sub section (1) within one month of the date of service of the notice or such longer time as the competent authority may allow, pays to the Board the rent in arrears or carries out or otherwise complies with the terms contravened by him to the satisfaction of the competent authority, as the case may be, the competent authority, shall, in lieu of evicting such person under sub – section (1), cancel its order made under sub-section (1) and thereupon such person shall hold the premises on the same terms and on which he held them immediately before such notice was served on him. Explanation: For the purpose of this section and section 85, the expression "unauthorized occupation" in relation to any person authorised to occupy any Board premises includes the continuance in occupation on by him or by any other person claiming through or under him of the premises after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has been duly determined." 11. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in challenging the decision to demolish as arbitrary or being in violative of the Constitution of India. In the counter it has been disclosed that a statement has been made at the floor of Assembly, furthermore, the purpose is public purpose as after demolish, the respondents is to construct better and more houses for allotment to more number of persons in view of the increased demand. 12. The petitioner have only tenancy right in the premises in terms of the lease executed in favour of its members who do not have any right other than the terms of the lease. The right to continue in possession is only with the permission of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on the basis of the lease deed executed from time to time. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of the respondents is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India therefore deserves to be rejected. 14. There is however force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reading of the impugned notice shows that the orders of eviction of the petitioner have been passed without terminating the lease deed. The petitioners members are admittedly, in actual possession of the premises under the valid lease deed executed in their favour, which can only be cancelled in terms of Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act, 1961. It is only after the cancellation of the lease deed or expiry of lease, the Housing Board can treat them as unauthorised occupant of the premises to order eviction, but not prior thereto. 15. On the second ground, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice is quashed with liberty to the Housing Board to proceed with the eviction of the petitioner in accordance with law. Consequently, connected MP is closed. No costs.