Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda by which affidavit dated 03.08.2009 (Ex.P1/A) filed by the petitioner/landlady Kulwant Kaur in her examination-in-chief has been ordered to be de-exhibited.

2. In brief, the petitioner/landlady filed a petition under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] on 19.11.2008 to seek eviction of the respondent from the demised premises, in which initially an application filed by the respondent for leave to defend was dismissed on 12.03.2009 and the order of eviction was passed, but that order was reversed by this Court in CR No. 1821 of 2009, decided on 18.05.2009, with a direction to the learned Rent Controller to decide the case within six months. Consequently, written statement was filed by the respondent and while leading her evidence, the petitioner/landlady filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief, on which she was cross-examined. Thereafter, the respondent examined their witnesses and after the evidence of both the parties, case was fixed for arguments. At this stage, the respondent filed two applications, one for de-exhibiting the affidavit (Ex.P1/A) and to be marked the same as Mark `X on the ground that it has not been attested in accordance with law and the other for production of rent deed. Application for de- exhibiting the affidavit (Ex.P1/A) has been allowed by the impugned order which led to filing of the present revision petition.

3. While passing the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller had recorded that the affidavit (Ex.P1/A) was attested on 10.07.2009 but the petitioner/landlady was not present in India at that time as she had herself admitted that she left India for USA in March 2009 and returned on 29.07.2009. Thus, she did not appear before the Oath Commissioner at the time of attestation of her affidavit (Ex.P1/A) which has been tendered in evidence as her examination-in-chief in terms of Order 18 Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"].

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that question of attestation of the affidavit pales into insignificance once the petitioner herself had appeared in Court and made the statement on solemn affirmation (SA) specifically alleging that her affidavit be read as part of her evidence before initiation of the cross-examination. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Surinder Gupta v. Hukam Chand, 2009(1) RCR(Rent) 541 and a Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Rita Pandit v. Atul Pandit, 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 504.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner, while appearing as PW1, had got recorded her statement on solemn affirmation stating that "I submit my affidavit Ex. P1/A in my evidence" and then "the same be read as part of my evidence". It is submitted that the question is not that the petitioner had appeared in the witness box and acknowledged the affidavit which was tendered in Court as her examination-in-chief in terms of Order 18 Rule 4(1) of the CPC, but the question is whether it was at all an affidavit in the eyes of law? In this regard, it is submitted that Section 139, Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and Chapter 12 Part A&B Volume 4 of the Rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court [for short "Rules & Orders"] are required to be appreciated. It is submitted that earlier to Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, which is in force w.e.f. 01.07.2002, Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC was "Witness to be examined in open Court. - The evidence of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in open Court in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge", but after the amendment in 2002, Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC reads as under :-

"4. Recording of