BAL KRISHAN JULKA Vs. K L VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here in after called 'the Act') is directed against the order of eviction dated 25th October, 1980 passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground covered by Section 14(l)(e) of the Act alleging that he is the owner of the premises, that the same were let for residential purposes, that he requires bona fide for occupation for himself and for the members of his family. The eviction petition was filed on 25th May, 1979 and at that time the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife, two married daughters, one unmarried son and one unmarried daughter. The respondent-landlord was previously posted at Allahabad but was transterred to Delhi with effect from 1st April, 1978. The landlord has retired since 30th September, 1979. His only son was previously working at Bombay but he has also been transferred to Delhi since Februa, 1979. He has been employed with Tobu Enterprises The leave to defend was granted to the petitioner and after recording evidence the trial court passed the order of eviction against the petitioner.

(2.) In this revision petition, the petitioner submits that the evidence of the respondent-landlord was recorded without administering any oath and therefore the Controller was in error in taking into consideration the evidence so recorded. The statement of the respondent-landlord was recorded on 6th March, 1980 and it appears that no oath was administered to him. The remaining statement was recorded on 10th April, 1980 but on that date the Controller administered him the oath. Learned counsel submits that statement without oath or solemn affirmation is useless, is of no value and cannot be looked into and, therefore, he submits that no order of eviction can be passed against the petitioner-tenant. The material evidence of the respondant recorded on 6th March, 1980 is the basis of the order of eviction as the landlord in his statement deposed about all the requirements and ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. Learned counsel refers to para 1528 of Phipaon on Evidence, Twelfth Edition. It reads as under :- "Where a witness before a magistrate had, by mistake, not been sworn, and the case was accordingly reheard on sworn testimony the same day, the second hearing was held justified as the first was a nullity and never placed the defendant in peril. So where the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland had given evidence on his attestation of honour as a pear, without oath, this was held illegal, but as the losing party who had called him had acquiesced, no new trial was granted."

(3.) This statement of law is based on Rex v. S. Marsham, (1912) 2 K.B 362 and Richards, Tweedy and Co. v. Hough 51 Law Journal Queen's Bench 361. In both these judgments the evidence recorded by the court without oath was held to be a nullity. This statement of law, however, is not applicable in India, where the Indian Oaths Act, 1873 was in force upto 26th December, 1969, The Oaths act, 1969 came into force from 26th December, 1969 repealing the Act of 1873. The relevant provisions for the purpose of the present case are almost the same and there is no material difference. Under Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969 all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence have power to administer oath. Under Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 oaths or affirmations are to be made by all persons, that is to say who may lawfully be examined or required to give evidence besides others. The forms of oaths or affirmations are prescribed and mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the said Act. Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 reads as under :