( 1 ) SHRI Vidya Sagar, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner has challenged the order of the Add1. Rent Controller Delhi dated 18- 4-91, whereby an order of eviction was passed against him in respect of the disputed premises undersection 14d of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act.

( 2 ) IN brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Shakuntala Devi, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, in about December, 1989 instituted an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground under section 14d of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act. As per the averments made in the petition, she is the owner landlady of the property 58, Banarsi Das Estate, Timarpur and that she is a widow. The suit premises were let out by her husband to the petitioner and that she requires the same for her residence and she does not have any other property for her residence. The ground floor is in occupation of another tenant Shri P. C. Gupta. She wants to live in her own house in Delhi. Since the petition was filed under Section 14d of the Act, process under Schedule III of the Act were issued to Vidya Sagar, petitioner, who in turn appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the case on 16-1-90 within the stipulated period of fifteen days. However, the affidavit filed by him in support of his application dated 16-1-90 was without any attestation.

( 3 ) THE Addl. Rent Controller did not agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that non attestation of the affidavit is only a technical defect and that this affidavit though unattested should be taken note of and the application filed under Section 25b (4) of the Act should be heard on merits. The Addl. Rent Controller held that the unattested affidavit filed under Section 25b (4) of the Act is not an affidavit in the eyes of law and as no affidavit was filed within fifteen days from the date of service for seeking leave to defend the petition, so the statement made by the landlady in the petition for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlady is entitled to an order of eviction on the ground as laid down under sub section (4) of Section 25b of the Act. In these circumstances, an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner Vidya Sagar.

( 4 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the counsel for petitioner on various decisions reported as 1981 (1) RCJ 206, 1982 (1) RCJ 349, 1984 (2) All India Rent Control Journal 291in support of his contention that if verification of the affidavit filed in support of the application for leave to defend is not in accordance with the law, an opportunity ought to be given to the tenant to file an additional affidavit and also when the affidavit was inadvertantly not filed the same can subsequently be taken on record. Learned counsel further submitted under Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 no omission to take any oath or make any affirmation shall invalidate any proceedings or render inadmissible in evidence whatsoever or in respect of which such ommission substitution or irregularity took place and therefore. When the petitioner has expressly stated on oath that the contents of the application were true, the fact that the affidavit remaining unattested was only an irregularity and could not adversely affect the right of the petitioner. He also pointed out that on 21-1-91 he moved an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code bringing to the notice of the Addl. Rent Controller that the affidavit was filed unattested due to inadvertance and that he may be allowed to correct the defect of attestation of the affidavit dated 16-1-90. The respondent opposed that application by filing a reply but the Addl. Rent Controller did not pass any specific order while disposing of the application and the Addl. Rent Controller only mentioned about the said application in his order. He argued that the impugned order dated 18-4-91 whereby the Addl. Rent Controller has clined to consider the affidavit filed by the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document