Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, who was employed as Road Inspector in the year 1991, was allotted a flat by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Madurai Ellis Nagar Scheme bearing flat No.H-1219 on outright purchase basis. The tentative price of the flat was fixed at Rs.1,45,000/-. An agreement to the said effect was entered into on 28.06.1991. Admittedly, pursuant to the allotment order, the petitioner got possession of the flat on 25.06.1991. Except the payment of a sum of Rs.6,000/-, the petitioner did not make any payment either towards the price of the flat allotted to him or towards the maintenance charges. As he was in the government service, he had been issued A and B certificates for availing housing loan. But the petitioner was not able to get housing loan from his employer and he did not pay the price of the flat by making private arrangement and also failed to seek conversion of the allotment into one of an allotment on hire purchase basis or allotment on rental basis. 2. While so, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board authorities came to know that the writ petitioner after having obtained possession of the flat, had let out the flat to others and had been receiving rent, but failed to make payment, took steps for the eviction and recovery of possession of the flat and also for recovery of rent during the period of his occupation equivalent to the rent collected from the other allottees on rental basis. Since the petitioner did not positively respond, the respondents 1 to 4 took coercive steps for retrieving possession and thus the Housing Board officials were able to take back possession of the above said flat allotted to the petitioner on 30.12.1996 after cancelling such allotment. The petitioner was served with notices for payment of the amount arrived at as rent for the period of his occupation. But the petitioner failed to do so. Consequent orders were also passed by the 4th and 5th respondents for deduction of a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. The said orders of the respondents 3 to 5 respectively are challenged in the writ petition. 3. But the petitioner failed to do so. Consequent orders were also passed by the 4th and 5th respondents for deduction of a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner. The said orders of the respondents 3 to 5 respectively are challenged in the writ petition. 3. Mr.R.Jayaseelan, learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, narrating the above said facts would contend that the petitioner who had chosen to let out the property and collected rent, did not make payment to the Housing Board, should not be shown any indulgence and the impugned order of the third respondent cannot be found fault with. Learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the sixth respondent also supported the arguments advanced by the learned standing counsel for the Housing Board. 4. Mr.N.A.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to project the case of the petitioner as if he had acted promptly within one month from the date of getting possession of the flat by issuing a letter to the Housing Board authorities informing them of his inability to avail the housing loan and that even thereafter the Tamil Nadu Housing Board simply slept over their right without cancelling the allotment and thus relieving the petitioner of his liability to pay the price of the flat. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the copy of a letter dated 26.08.1991 addressed to Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai-625 016, which is found at page No.13 of the typed set of papers. 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board would submit that though the petitioner would have included a copy of his letter dated 26.08.1991 in the typed set of papers, no such letter was received in the office of the Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Madurai Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai. Learned standing counsel also pointed out the fact that the petitioner has not produced any acknowledgment showing receipt of the said letter in the office of the above said Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai. Learned standing counsel also pointed out the fact that the petitioner has not produced any acknowledgment showing receipt of the said letter in the office of the above said Executive Engineer/Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ellis Nagar, Madurai. In addition, the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board pointed out the recital made in the said letter to the effect that the key of the flat allotted to him had already been handed over to the Housing Board authorities. But no acknowledgment showing the said fact has been produced. Learned standing counsel for the Housing Board also pointed out various letters addressed to the petitioner, the employers of the petitioner and copies of other proceedings leading to the recovery of possession of the flat allotted to the petitioner. Copies of which have been included in the typed set of papers by the respondents 1 to 4. This court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions and also the documents produced in the form of typed set of papers on both sides. Upon such consideration, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this petition. 6. After getting the allotment of the flat on the basis of outright purchase, the price of which had been fixed at Rs.1,45,000/-, the petitioner did not take any effort to make payment of the same. There are also documents showing that the petitioner who got A and B forms to be submitted to his employer for the sanction of the housing loan, did not submit the said forms to the department in which he was employed. As per the petitioner's stand, two months after the date of allotment and within two months from the date on which he got possession of the flat, he came to know that he could not get the housing loan. But he did not take any steps by submitting an application to the Housing Board for conversion of the allotment from one of outright sale basis into one of allotment on the basis of hire purchase or allotment on rental basis. The petitioner has also failed to surrender the flat and get acknowledgment for the same so that he could have minimised his liability towards the Housing Board. 7. The petitioner has also failed to surrender the flat and get acknowledgment for the same so that he could have minimised his liability towards the Housing Board. 7. On the other hand, the petitioner seems to have rented out the property to others and was collecting rent from his tenants, which is seen from the communications addressed by the Housing Board authorities to the petitioner and the officials of the department, in which he was employed. It is pertinent to note that even after the issuance of notice calling upon him to vacate and hand over possession of the flat and make payment of the amount claimed as rent, he did not vacate and hand over vacant possession of the flat and the same made it necessary for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board authorities to take coercive steps to retrieve possession of the flat. The office report dated 30.12.1999, a copy of which is found at page No.17 of the typed set of papers filed by the respondents 1 and 3, would make it clear that possession was taken only on 30.12.1999. 8. In view of the above said facts, this court finds no error in the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in letter No.2.7/71016/2000 dated 09.09.2003. The consequent order passed by the 4th and 5th respondents for the recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner's salary also cannot be termed erroneous and the attempt made by the petitioner to get the impugned orders quashed as arbitrary miserably fails. There is no scope for interference with the impugned order of the respondents 3 to 5. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Tamil Nadu Housing Board shall be at liberty to recover the amount due from the petitioner by applying the relevant provisions.