Holding

The term "residential house" includes flats built above a commercial plot, making the spouse ineligible for another residential allotment; therefore, the cancellation is justified, and the deposit must be refunded without interest, without setting a precedent.

Summary

The Chandigarh Housing Board allotted a commercial plot to the husband of Narinder Kaur Makol, who, with permission, constructed residential flats on the upper floors. Makol later applied for a residential plot, filing an affidavit stating that neither she nor her husband owned any residential house or plot, and was allotted the plot. Upon discovering the existence of the residential flats, the Board cancelled the allotment and forfeited the deposit under Regulation 6(2). The consumer tribunals set aside the cancellation, but the Supreme Court held that a flat built above a commercial plot falls within the meaning of "residential house" in Regulation 6(1), rendering Makol ineligible. Consequently, the cancellation was justified, and although the regulation permits forfeiture, the Court ordered a refund of the deposit without interest, noting that this refund should not be treated as precedent. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the Board's order of cancellation.

Issues considered

Whether a residential flat constructed above a commercially allotted plot is covered by the term "residential house" under Regulation 6(1) of the Chandigarh Housing Board Regulations, 1979.
Whether the cancellation of the residential plot allotment and forfeiture of the deposit is justified when the affidavit contains a false statement made bona fide.
Whether the respondent is entitled to a refund of the deposit and if such refund creates a precedent.

Subjects

Urban DevelopmentHousing AllocationEligibilityResidential House DefinitionAffidavit False StatementDeposit ForfeitureConsumer DisputesRegulation Interpretation

Judgment

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. A
v.
NARINDER KAUR MAKOL

JULY 13, 2000

[M. JAGANNADHA RAO ANO D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] B

Urban Development:

Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of
Tenements) Regulations, 1979. C
Regulation 6(/)-Allotment of residential plot-By Housing Board-
Eligibility-Regulations of the Board disqualified a person for allotment of
residential plot if he or his spouse owned any other residential plot in
specified !ocalities-Applican/'s husband constructed residential flats above D
a commercial plot with due permission-Held: Words "residential house" in
the Regulation covered such residential flats also-Hence, applicant not
eligible for allotment of a residential plot-Haryana Housing Board Act,
1971, S.74.

Regulation 6(2)--Fa/se affidavit-Filing of-Forfeiture of deposit in E
such cases-Applicant's husband constructed residential flats above a
commercial plot with due permission-Applicant filed an affidavit stating
that her husband did not own a residential plot-However, allotment in
favour of the applicant cancelled and deposit forfeited-Held: Although the
incorrect statement in the affidavit is made bona fide the cancellation of
allotment justified-Though the Regulations permit forfeiture of deposit yet F
applicant entitled lo refund of deposit but without interest-However, such
refund order not to be treated as a precedent in any other case.

Words and PhraEes:

"Residential house"-Meaning of-In the context of Regn.6(1) of the G
Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements)
Regulations, 1979.

The appellant-Board allotted a commercial plot to the respondent's
husband. As per the allotment order the respondent's husband constructed R
• 487
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A residential flats, in first and second floors of the building constructed on the
said commercial plot with due permission.

Subsequently, the respondent (i.e. wife of the allottee) applied for
allotment of a residential plot and also filed an affidavit stating that neither
she nor her husband owned a residential plot in any of the places mentioned
B in Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management
and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. On the basis of this affidavit the
respondent was allotted a residential plot.

Later on, realising that the respondent's husband owned residential
C flats, the allotment was cancelled and deposit forfeited under Regulation 6(2).
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums up to the National Commission
held the cancellation of allotment as unjustified. Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. Admittedly, there is a residential flat in the second and third
D floors of the building constructed on the commercial plot. Therefore, it must
necessarily be held that the husband of the respondent owned a residential
house within the territory in question and that, therefore, the respondent (wife
of the first allottee) is not eligible for allotment of another residential plot.
These plots are allotted on concessional basis to the allottees by the public
E authority and the relevant Regulations must, therefore, be interpreted in such
a manner to serve their real purpose so that the plots are available, as far as
possible, to the largest number of persons, and for preventing the same family
members, husband or wife or dependent as the case may be, from getting more
than one plot or house, for the same purpose. Hence the words 'residential
F house' in Regulation 6(1) of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment,
Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 must be treated as
including a flat constructed above the commercial plot on the ground floor,
This will be so even if originally the plot was allotted for commercial purposes,
if incidentally construction of residential flat above the ground floor
commercial plot is permitted as per the plans. In other words, even though
G the plot is allotted as a commercial plot, if it is permissible to build a
residential flat above the commercial plot, and is so constructed, then such a
residential flat will come within the prohibition in Regulation 6(1). (492-C-Fl

2.1. The declaration made by the respondent that her husband did not
own a residential house was not correct. It may be a bona fide st'ltement by
H her, but it does not reflect the facts correctly. The cancellation of the allotment
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. NARINDER KAUR MAKOL 489
in favour of the respondent by the authorities was, therefore, justified. A
1492-GI

2.3. Although the relevant Regulations permit forfeiture of the deposit
amount yet the respondent is permitted to get back the amount deposited by
her without interest. However, this order of refund will not be treated as a
precedent in any other case. (493-B) B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal. No. 3728 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.99 of the National Consumers
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1469of1997.
c
B. Datta, D.H. Hasan and Manoj Swarup for the Appellants.

H.S. Foolka and Sudhir Nandrajog for the Respondent.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered
D
Leave granted.

This appeal is preferred by the Chandigarh Housing Board against the
judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in R.P. No. 1469of1997 dated 29.4.1999.
,.
E
A commercial plot was allotted to the husband of the respondent on
4.4.1979 by the Notified Area Committee, Union Territory of Chandigarh, on
free hold basis in the Motor Market and Commercial Complex at Manimajra,
by the appellant.

Para 8 (a) of the said allotment order stated that the allottee should F
complete the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan which shall be
according to the control sheets prepared by the Chief Architect and Secretary
>
\ of the Board. Thereafter, the Administrator issued a letter on 9.7.1993 to the
_J respondent's husband that the procedure relating to preparation of
Architectural Control Sheets for Shop-Flats are applicable for Motor Shops G
also and that in these cases the said procedure of Architectural Control
permits the construction of shops on the ground floor and flats on the first
and second floor. On the basis of the above said order, the respondent's
husband submitted the Plan to the Architect for construction of a ground
floor for commercial purposes and for construction of first and second floor
as residential flats. A Deed of Conveyance was thereafter executed by the H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Board in favour of the respondent's husband, on 30th September, 1981. Para
4 of the said conveyance also stated that the transferee should complete the
said building in accordance wit\ the sanctioned Plan which should be
according to the Control Sheets p(epared by the Chief Architect and the
Secretary.

B On the basis of the above Plan, the husband of the respondent got
constructed a building in which the ground floor was being used for commercial
purposes and the first and second floor for residential purposes.

Subsequently, the respondent (i.e. wife of the above allottee) filed an
C application for allotment of a residential plot and she filed declaration by way
of an affidavit that neither she, nor her husband nor any of her dependent
relations including any married childern own any free hold or leasehold or on
hire purchase basis, residential plot or house in the Union Territory of
Chandigarh or in any of the Urban Estates of Mohali or Panchkula. She had
to file such an affidavit in view of the conditions of eligibility mentioned in
D Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and
Sale of Tenaments) Regulations, 1979. The said Regulations were framed
under Section 74 of the Haryana Housing Board Act 1971, as extended to the
Union Territory of Chandigarh. The relevant Regulation reads as follows:-

"Eligibility of Allotment:-
E
(!) A dwelling unit or flat in the Housing Estates of the Board
shall be allotted only to such person who or his wife/her husband or
any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children does
not own on freehold or leasehold or on hire purchase basis, a residential
plot or house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any of the
F Urban Estates of Mohali or; Panchkula, Similarly, persons who have
acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Govt./
Semi-Govt./Municipal Cortjmittee/Corporation/Improvement Trust at
CONCESSIONAL RATE in\their name or in the name of any dependent [
member of their family wit! not be eligible to apply to the Board for
G allotment of a dwelling uniL or flat. Subject to the above provision,
the applicant should have been a bona fide resident of U.T. of
Chandigarh for a period of at least three years on the date of submitting
the application.
(2) The applicant shall furnish an affidavit in the prescribed form
H with regard to his eligibility along with the application. In the event
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. NARINDER KAUR MAKOL 491

of the affidavit being found false at any stage, the Board shall be A
entitled to cancel the registration or the allotment of dwelling unit or
flat, as the case may be, and to forfeit the deposit received with the
application and all the payments made to the Board thereafter."

An allotment of a residential plot was made in favour of the respondent
on the basis of the affidavit. B
Later on, realising that the husband of the respondent was owning a
residential flat, the authorities cancelled the allotment in favour of the
respondent. This was done by an order dated 15.12.1993. Aggrieved by the
said order, the appellant moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Union Territory at Chandigarh, in Complaint Case No. 1/1996. The said C
forum allowed the application set aside the order of cancellation dated
15.12.1993 and directed that the respondent to be put in possession of the
residential plot allotted to her.

Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the appellant moved
an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union D
Territory at Chandigarh, in appeal Case No. 106/97, which by its order dated
I l.11.1997, confirmed the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the said
order, the appellant preferred a revision before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi. As already stated, the National Commission
dismissed the revision by its order dated 29.4.1999.
E
In this appeal, it is contended by Mr. B. Datta, learned Senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh Housing Board that all the Tribunals
below had gone wrong in their interpretation of Regulation 6(1) referred to
above. Learned Senior counsel contended that it was an undisputed fact that
on the commercial plot allotted to the respondent's husband, admittedly a
residential flat had been constructed in the second and third floors, while the F
ground floor was being used for commercial purposes. Learned Senior counsel
contended that for incurring a disqualification under Regulation 6( I), it was
not necessary that the entire building owned by respondent's husband must
be one exclusively used for residential purposes. Even if the ground floor was
used for commercial purposes and there was a res.idential flat in the second G
and th i~d floors, the said ownership of a flat in the said floors on the part of
the husband of the respondent would be a ground to disqualify the respondent
(wife of the original allottee) from seeking any allotment of another plot for
residential purposes.

On a reading of the Regulation No 6 referred to above, it is clear that H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the eligibility of the other spouse is to be decided on the basis as to whether .
the other spouse or their dependents do not own a residential plot or house
in the U.T. of Chandigarh or in any of the Urban Estates of Mohali or
Panchkula. Therefore, in the pre~~nt case, while considering the question of
eligibility of the respondent we have to see whether her husband owned an
B original plot or house in the U.T. of Chandigarh or in the Urban Estate of
Mohali or Panchkula, for residential purposes.

In our opinion, in view of the admitted fact that there is a residential
flat in the second and third floors of the ground floor commercial plot, it must
necessarily be held that the husband of the respondent owned a residential
C house within the territory in question and that therefore the respondent (wife
of the first allottee) is not eligible for allotment of another residential plot from
the said authority. It must be realised that these plots are allotted on
concessional basis to the allottees by the public authority and the relevant
Regulations must, therefore, be interpreted in such a manner to save their real
purpose so that the plots are available, as far as possible, to the largest
D number of persons, and for preventing the same family members husband or
wife or dependents, as the case may be, from getting more than one plot or
house, for the same purpose. We are of the view that the words 'residential
house' in Regulation 6(1) must be treated as including a flat constructed
above the commercial flat on the ground floor. This will be so even if originally
E the plot was allotted for commercial purpose. If incidentally construction of
residential flat above the ground floor, commercial plot is permitted as per the
plans. In other words, even though the plot is allotted as a commercial plot,
if it is permissible to build a residential flat above the commercial plot, and
is so constructed, then such a residential flat will come within the prohibition
in Regulation 6( I).
F
We, are, therefore, of the view that the declaration made by the
respondent that her husband did not own a residential house was not correct.
It may be a bona fide statement by her, but it does not in our opinion reflect
the facts correctly. The cancellation of the allotment in favour of the respo~dent
G by the authorities on 15.12.1994 was, therefore, justified.

For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the orders passed by the District
Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission and uphold the
order of cancellation of allotment.

H In view of the fact that the statement made by the respondent in her
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD v. NARINDER KAUR MAKOL 493
affidavit is bona fide, it is contended for the respondent that the amount of A
deposit made by the respondent should be refunded to her.

But, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends
that the relevant Regulation permits forfeiture of the deposit amount. On the
peculiar facts of this case, we are permitting the respondent to get back the
amount deposited by her but without interest. This will not be treated as a B
precedent in any other case.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, subject to the
direction with regard to the refund of the amount as mentioned above.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed. C