Chandigarh Housing Board v. Gurmeet Singh (AIR 2002 SC 587)

Facts of the Case

The Chandigarh Housing Board (Board), constituted under the Haryana Housing Board Act, handles the development and sale of housing units to the public in Chandigarh.

• In 1986, the Board announced a housing scheme for Category I, II, and III flats.

• Eligibility Conditions required applicants to be either domiciles of Chandigarh or bona fide residents for at least three years.

• On March 3, 1987, the respondent, Gurmeet Singh, applied for a Category I flat, claiming to be a domicile of Chandigarh, but he did not specify his residence period.

• On October 20, 1989, the Board allotted a second-floor flat to him based on his domicile claim.

• The Board later asked the respondent to submit a domicile certificate. He provided a residential certificate and other documents which the Board deemed insufficient to prove domicile status.

• On November 17, 1993, the Board issued a show-cause notice and eventually cancelled the flat allotment on May 16, 1997.

• The respondent challenged the cancellation in the High Court. The High Court ruled in his favor, holding that the residential certificate proved his eligibility.

• The Board appealed against this High Court decision to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the respondent was eligible for the flat allotment based on his claim of being a domicile of Chandigarh, despite failing to furnish a domicile certificate and only submitting a residential certificate.

Rule

• Regulation 6, Chandigarh Housing Board Regulations, 1976: Stipulates that applicants must be domiciles of Chandigarh or bona fide residents for at least three years.

• Applicants must provide an affidavit of eligibility, and false affidavits can lead to cancellation of allotment.

• In Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court distinguished between the technical and popular meanings of domicile. The Court suggested applying the popular meaning (residing in a place indefinitely with an intent to live there for a significant period) for practical purposes like educational admissions to ensure fairness.

Held

The Supreme Court:

• Noted that the respondent’s application stated he was domiciled in Chandigarh but left the bona fide residency period blank and repeatedly failed to provide a domicile certificate as requested.

• Held that the High Court erred in accepting a mere residential certificate as sufficient proof of domicile without proper verification.

• Reaffirmed that the term "domicile" should be understood in its popular sense as a permanent or indefinite residence, not necessarily in a strict technical legal sense.

• Found that the High Court misapplied the distinction made in Pradeep Jain’s Case, treating a residential certificate as sufficient proof of domicile without verifying permanent residence, leading to an erroneous conclusion.

• The Supreme Court found that the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria under the domicile requirement since he failed to provide a domicile certificate or other valid proof of permanent residence.

• The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Board's cancellation of the flat allotment was upheld.

• The respondent was given the opportunity to apply for a domicile certificate, and if granted, the Board should reconsider his allotment application.

Commentary Note

Defining Domicile of Choice

This case underscores the distinction between simple residence (a fact) and domicile (a fact plus intent). The acquisition of a domicile of choice is paramount for determining legal rights and jurisdiction in many contexts, including housing schemes.

Quoting from the principles governing the acquisition of domicile:

For the acquisition of domicile of choice, it must be shown that the person concerned had a certain state of mind, the “animus manendi” (intention of remaining). If he claims that he acquired a new domicile at a particular time, he must prove that he had formed the intention of making his permanent home in the country of residence and of continuing to reside there permanently. Residence alone, unaccompanied by this state of mind is insufficient.

Domicile of choice is that every person of full age is free to acquire in substitution for that which he possesses at the time of choice. By domicile is meant a permanent home. Domicile means the place, which a person has fixed as a habitation for himself and his family not for a mere special and temporary purpose, but with a present intention of making it his permanent home. Domicile of choice is thus a result of choice.