Hira Lal vs Amarjit Singh

Prakash Narain, J.

(1) RESPDT. 2 obtained an eviction order against petitioner on 4.8.66 which was executable after31.12.71. On 17.4.72, Respdt. 2 applied for permission U/s 19 of Slum Areas Act which was granted on 28.1.75. Tenant filed petition U/Art. 227 to High Court questioning order of competent authority on grounds, amongst other, that tenant''s affidavit had been wrongly rejected. Judgment after giving above facts. para 9 onwards is :-

(2) Before I close I would like to comment upon the question of affidavits once again, Social beneficial legislation has been undertaken by the State to fulfill the avowed purpose of creating a welfare State. It is for this reason that special Tribunals have been created and certain benefits and protections have been given to what may generally be called the weaker section of the society. In order, however, to mitigate the trouble and inconvenience caused by high cost of litigation or the time taken in normal litigation, summary procedures have been permitted in Tribunals. In furtherance of the concept of expeditions trial evidence is often taken in Tribunals on affidavits. These affidavits must, Therefore, be proper affidavits confirming to the rules regarding giving of evidence by affidavits. Order 19 of the CPC which has existed on the statute book for a long time sets out the rules regarding taking of evidence on affidavits. Rule 3 of Order 19 CPC . lays down how affidavits are to be made and sworn. It is a salutary rule and must be strictly followed, Repeatedly the courts have pointed out what types of affidavits should be accepted and what types of affidavits must be ignored. I can do no better than to quote from the judgment of Tek Chand, J. in Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, of the report reads as under ;- "Order 19, Rule 3 (1) of the CPC requires ;- .Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated".

(3) In no affidavit has the petitioner said which part was based on information and which on belief. Nowhere he has divulged the source of his information or the grounds of his belief. Where the matter deposed to is not based on personal knowledge but on information, the sources of information ought to be clearly disclosed. The petitioner''s several affidavits infringe the provisions of Order 19, Rule 3, when they should have been strictly observed. Such affidavits being vocative of the requirements of the mandatory provisions of law, deserve to be ignored. The words that the contents of the affidavits "are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief" carry no sanctity and such a verification cannot be accepted. It has been held over and over again that affidavits must be either affirmed as true to knowledge or from information received provided the source of information is disclosed, or as to what the deponent believes to be true provided that the grounds for such belief were stated. Such Affidavits where the verification lacks the essential requirements, are valueless,"

(4) The Supreme Court in A.K.K. Nambiar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, observed as follows : "......The reasons for verification of affidavit are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence......"

(5) The result is that this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs 300.00