LEELA WATI Vs. GANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under S. 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, intituled by the petitioner to challenge the eviction order passed by Shrimati Manju Goel, 4th Additional Rent Controller Delhi under S. 14 (1) (e) of the said Act. The facts of the case show that the respondent mentioned in the eviction application had applied for leave to defend under deprocedure prescribed by S. 25-B within the time mentioned in the summons, but leave to defend was refused on two grounds.

(2.) Firstly, the application was accompanied by the short affidavit stat ing "that the contents of the accompanying application for leave to defend of paras 1 to 5 are true to my knowledge and the same may be read as part of this affidavit", but the learned Additional Rent Controller thought that the paragraphs themselves must be reproduced in the affidavit. Secondly even on the merits and the facts stated in the application, the learned 4th Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that no facts were stated which entitled the tenant to leave to defend.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has attacked the order of the Additional Rent Control on both points. He says that it has been held in two judgments of this Court reported as Gian Chand v. Roop Narain, 1979 Rajdhani LR 469 and Jagir Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, (AIR 1979 Delhi 245) at page 563 of the same report, holding that the mere fact that the affidavit was in short from was insufficient to non-suit 'the replying tenant. I fully endorse this view. It is too technical to hold that the paragraphs of the application must be reproduced in the affidavit before they can be read as part of the affidavit. The statement in the affidav reading that the contents of the application should be read as part of the affidavit is sufficient. The verification at the bottom of the affidavit swearing to the contents of the affidavit, shows that the Controller had to read the application as part of the affidavit. This short form of affidavit is generally used in almost all Courts in India and can not be disregarded for the purposes of a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act. So, the order of the Rent Cotroller is wrong on this point.