CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. versus GURMIT SINGH

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 09-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
' 
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
GURMIT SINGH 
JANUARY 9, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of 
Tenements) Regulations, 1976-Regulation 6-Expression 'Domicile'-
Connotation-Allotment of flat-Eligibility criteria-Applicant to be domicile C 
of Union Territory or bona fide resident for at least 3 years-Applicant applied • 
on the premise of being a domicile of Union Territory but did not furnish such 
certificate-Allotment cancelled-High court set aside the cancellation-On 
appeal held, applying popular meaning of 'domicile' criteria, flat can be 
allotted if applicant furnishes domicile certificate-On failure he cannot fall 
back on the criteria of being a bonafide resident . 
D 
Words and Phrases: 
'Domicile '-Meaning of 
Appellant-Board floated a housing scheme for general public, for 
allotment of flats. The eligibility condition under the Regulations was that E 
the applicant should be either a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh or 
should have been a bona fide resident of the Territory for a period of atleast 
3 years on the date of submitting the application. 
Respondent submitted an application form to the Board for allotment of 
flat. He did not furnish any information regarding his being a bonajide F 
resident of Chandigarh and also his period of stay. However, he stated that he 
is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh and on that premise the Board 
allotted him a flat. Subsequently, the respondent was asked to a submit the 
domicile certificate or any other proof in that regard. Respondent submitted 
a residential certificate but not a domicile certificate. Appellant-Board G 
repeatedly asked for the same. Respondent did not furniSh any such document 
to prove his eligibility. Thereafter the Board issued a show cause notice to 
the respondent. Respondent filed writ petition and the High Court directed 
the Board to take a decision about handing over the possession of the flat. 
Appellant-Board after giving opportunity to the respondent cancelled the 
109 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A allotment of the flat. Respondent challenged the same. High court held that 
since the respondent has already furnished a residential certificate to the 
~
effect that he is a bonafide resident of Chandigarh for the last more than 
three years, and further the respondent being an Indian citizen, is a domicile 
of Union Territory of Chandigarh. Thus, it set aside the order passed by the 
B Appellant-Board. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Respondent had applied for allotment of flat on the premise 
that he being a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh, is eligible to apply 
for allotment of the flat, but he failed to furnish such a certificate to the Board. 
C The respondent did not apply for allotment under the eligibility criteria of 
being a bonafide resident of Union Territory of Chandigarh for the last three 
years. The respondent having unequivocally claimed to be a domicile of Union 
Territory of Chandigarh for satisfying the eligibility criteria, it was not open 
.to him to fall back on the second eligibility criteria of being a bonafide 
D resident of Chandigarh for last more than three years and the Board, 
therefore, was justified in cancelling the allotment of flat in his favour. 
[115-B-C; 116-G-H) 
2. High Court fell in error in setting aside the order passed by the Board 
cancelling the allotment of the flat in favour of the respondent and also holding 
that the respondent being citizen of India is a domicile of Union Territory of 
E Chandigarh. )115-C; 116-H; 117-A) 
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors .• v. Union of India and Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 
654, explained. 
3. u,nder Regulation 6, one of the eligibility criteria for submitting an 
F application for allotment offlat is that the applicant should be domicile of Union 
Territory of Chandigarh. The expression 'domicile' employed in Regulation 
6 has not been used in technical sense, as referred to in Article 5 of the 
Constitution but in popular or loose sense in contradiction to the words 
"bonafide resident of Chandigarh for a period of at least three years" which 
means that 'domicile' is permanent home or intended to live permanently or 
G indefinitely within the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Therefore, the 
expression 'domicile' in Regulation 6 is assigned the meaning not in technical 
sense in which it is used

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.