Judgment :- 1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Resolution No.11.04 dated 21.07.1997 confirming the Resolution No.11.07 dated 02.11.1993 passed by the second respondent not to transfer the lease rights to the legal heirs of the deceased original allottees and quash the same. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the two resolutions one is of the year 1993 and the other is of the year 1997 confirming the earlier resolution whereby the Housing Board had taken a policy decision not to transfer the leasehold right to the legal heirs of the deceased original allottees. 3. No counter has been filed so far. However, Mr.Jayaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Housing Board brings to the attention of this court the orders passed by the Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No.1443 of 2008 dated 16.6.2010 where similar claim by one of the residents of Door No.11, Model House Road, C.I.T.Nagar, Chennai was considered and the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant the benefit of transfer of leasehold right as the legal heirs of the deceased allottee in respect of the rented premises. 4. The Division Bench in its order justified the Housing Board's policy decision not to transfer the leasehold right in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased. Paras 13 and 14 of the Division Bench order reads as follows:- “13.) The decision taken by the Housing Board not to transfer the allotment under the public rental category was with a specific purpose. It was a decision taken in larger public interest. There are many people in the queue, claiming such allotment. It is only when the houses are vacated, the Housing Board would be in a position to consider their request for allotment. In case existing allotments are transferred from the name of original allottee to the legal heirs and thereafter, to the next generation, the property would continue to be in the hands of chosen few and others would be denied of such accommodation. Therefore, an element of social objective was behind the decision taken by the Board not to permit transfers to the legal heirs. We do not find any illegality in the said policy decision warranting our interference. Therefore, an element of social objective was behind the decision taken by the Board not to permit transfers to the legal heirs. We do not find any illegality in the said policy decision warranting our interference. The application submitted by the appellant was rejected on valid reasons, in the light of the prevailing policy of the Board. The matter was considered once again by the Government and the plea was again rejected. The issue was re-examined by the learned Single Judge and arrived at a correct conclusion that the order does not warrant interference. We do not find any justifiable reason to take a different view in the matter. 14.) Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. No costs. The appellant is granted eight weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to vacate the premises.” 5. That apart the allotment of the rental premises is to the individual and the writ petition filed by the Association cannot be justified in view of the Division Bench decision in Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani represented by the General Secretary - V. - Annamalai, No.52, Nallathambi Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 reported in 2005 WLR 389. 6. For all the above said reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.