10.Admittedly, even as per the petitioners' own statement found in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the building, which is in occupation, was constructed in the year 1987, as the property tax assessment for the shop was assessed. Almost, 32 years has elapsed, since the date of the construction even according to the petitioner's own admission. Therefore, it can be inferred that the petitioners' shop is a very old building. It is the case of the petitioners that the shop is a very old building and the shop was constructed out of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners' father's own funds and only the land was taken on lease from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. However, this is disputed by the learned standing counsel for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Further, it is the case of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board that the petitioners are not the original allottee and they are only a sub-tenant. The petitioners' claim that their shop will not cause any hindrance for the development of the property will have to be established as it has been disputed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. There is no report from any Engineer/competent authority available in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioners to show that the petitioners' shop will not cause any hindrance for the development of the property by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Considering the fact that the building, even according to the petitioners, is more than 32 years old, it can be inferred that the building must be in a dilapidated condition. This Court has also perused the photographs submitted by the petitioners. As seen from the photographs, there are lot of algae found in the building and the building seems to be very old. The petitioners' right to retain the shop has also been protected by the resolution of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. As per the resolution dated 30.10.2009, they have decided to demolish and reconstruct the building and allot shops to the original allottees on priority basis. If the petitioners are the original allottee, their rights have been protected by the aforesaid resolution. Further, all the remaining occupants in the same shopping complex are also in the same position as that of the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be given a special privilege without any basis.
