The judgment established the importance of proving independent income to establish non-dependency for housing allotment and clarified the retrospective application of housing regulations.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

The petitioner in this petition (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives), sought a writ of mandamus to the respondents-Chandigarh Housing Board and the Chandigarh Administration, to deliver possession of dwelling unit No.3032/1 of the HIG-II category in Sector 44D, Chandigarh, which has not been so delivered despite the allotment letters dated 25.10.1989 and 30.04.1991, issued by the first respondent.

2. The facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board, in the year 1997, the petitioner had applied for allotment of a dwelling unit in the HIG-II category, in Sector-44D, Chandigarh, on a hire -purchase basis.

Along with the application form, he submitted the demand draft for the requisite amount and consequent upon the draw of lots held, he was issued a letter of general allotment on 25.10.1989, to the effect that he had been allocated a first floor dwelling unit as per the scheme and was further directed to deposit the consideration amount for the dwelling unit as per the schedule given in the letter.

That too having been complied with by him, he was issued an allotment letter for a specific dwelling unit, i.e. No.3032/1, Sector-44D, Chandigarh, on 30.04.1991. He was required to deposit an additional amount of money which he did not deposit in time but deposited within the extended time given in the allotment letter itself along with the additional amount for late payment. Thus, the requisite amount was deposited by him along with other necessary documents, vide letter dated 13.08.1991.

Up till this point, there is no dispute.

3. However, as per the reply filed by the Housing Board, the petitioner, in terms of Clause 3 of the allotment letter, was required to submit an affidavit to the effect that neither he, nor his wife, nor any dependant relations, including unmarried children, owned in full or in part, on free hold/lease hold or on hire-purchase basis, a residential plot or house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, or in the neighbouring urban estates of Mohali and Panchkula. Further, that neither he, nor his dependant relations, have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India from the Government/semi Government agency/Municipal Committee/Government Trust at a concessional rate.

The affidavit was also required to state that prior to the allotment of the house(dwelling unit) in question, neither the petitioner, nor his wife or dependent relations, including unmarried children, had transferred the registration or allotment of a residential plot or house either in Chandigarh or in Mohali and Panchkula, in the name of any blood relations.

The said affidavit was duly sworn by the petitioner and submitted along with his letter dated 13.08.1991.

4. The reply of the first respondent further states that after the receipt of the above affidavit, it came to the notice of the Housing Board that the petitioners' daughter, Ms. Rajeena Khera, (now one of his legal representatives), who was stated to be a student in 1991, but was above 18 years of age and was residing with the petitioner and was dependent upon him, had also applied for a Category II flat under the same Scheme on 29.6.1987 and she had also been allotted Flat No. 261/2, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh, in a draw of lots held on 26.5.1990 and an allotment letter in respect of the said flat had been issued to her on 23.1.1991.

His daughter had furnished an affidavit dated 25.4.1991, to the effect that she belonged to a farmer family and owned agricultural land from which she was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. The said affidavit was also accompanied by a certificate from an IAS officer, certifying that her income from her land at Tohana, then in District Hisar, was Rs.60,000/- per annum.

Consequently, the Board, before releasing possession of dwelling unit No.261/2, Sector 45-A, to the petitioners' daughter, asked her to furnish information as to whether she was married a