Najmi Waziri, J.:--

1. The present revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the “Act”) assails an order dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi whereby the eviction petition was allowed and consequently an eviction order was passed against the present petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the premises in question is a shop bearing No. G-41, Marina Arcade, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The respondent (the “landlord”) filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act on the ground that he required the tenanted premises to establish his son’s business in a more suitable location; that the son presently occupied a shop in Aurobindo Market which because of its small size and location was not commercially viable; that the son was dependent on him to open a shop in a more suitable location and that the tenanted premises was most suitable for his requirement. There is no dispute as to the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and that the tenant has been paying a monthly rent of Rs 732/- excluding all incidental charges to the landlord. Acknowledging that a notice of the proceedings was received which was left in his office by the Process Server on 31.7.2008, the tenant – Mr. Salazar Luis Anthony Marquez, filed an application for leave to defend on 18.8.2008. The tenant passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and his legal representatives, the present petitioners were brought on record. His widow–present petitioner No. 1 moved two applications dated 14.01.2010 and 01.05.2013 under section 151 CPC for bringing on record the duly attested copy of the affidavit dated 18.08.2008 which had been filed by the tenant. The affidavit attested by the Oath Commissioner was required to be filed alongwith the application seeking leave to defend, under section 25 B(4) of the Act. The former application of 14.01.2010 contended that the application filed by the deceased tenant under section 25-B(4) and (5) of the Act, inadvertently did not contain the attestation of the Oath Commissioner yet got filed, despite the clerical error, through the counsel representing the tenant. It was submitted that the error was on the part of the counsel for filing it without the Oath Commissioner’s attestation. Therefore, the tenant should not suffer on account of negligence of the counsel. In the second application dated 01.05.2013, filed on 03.05.2013 the applicant reiterated the reasons mentioned in the first application and further submitted that non-attestation of the affidavit by the Oath Commissioner was a curable defect which could be allowed by the Court by exercising its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

It was submitted that under Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 no proceedings could be invalidated simply because of omission of oath or such irregularity; that the absence of mentioning the name of the Notary or the absence of stamp and seal of the Notary in the application dated 18.8.2008 could not be considered as an omission which was fatal to the application and case of the tenant. The learned counsel for the tenant had argued that the non-attestation of the affidavit by the Oath Commissioner was curable and not a fatal defect. In furtherance of this point, the counsel relied on Section 7 of the Oaths Act and Section 139 of the CPC. The counsel further relied on judgments to show the Court that the affidavit of Mr. Salazar should be taken on record despite its curable defect. The counsel argued, before the Trial Court, that if the application requesting the affidavit to be taken on record is rejected, there would be substantial injustice to the tenant, especially when Court is vested with the power to cure a defect, which the tenant believes to be curable in nature, chooses not to exercise such power. The counsel for the tenant referred to section 83(1) of Representation of Peop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document