JUDGMENT A. N. Verma, J.:- 1. THESE three petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the impugned orders are also common. 2. SANTOSH Kumar Kesarwani petitioner in writ petitions no. 7772 and 7773 of 1979 is admittedly the owner and landlord of two houses nos. 248 and 249 situate in the City of Allahabad. One Om Narain Verma was the tenant of house no. 248 whereas house no. 249 was occupied by four different tenants namely Suraj Bhan Bahal, Nagar Mahapalika, Brijlal and Niranjan Lal. The aforesaid landlord filed applications for eviction of the various tenants under Section 21 (1). The application was based on both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. It was alleged that the landlord bonafide needed the premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that the buildings were in dilapidated condition and were required for being demolished and reconstructed. The application was contested only by Om Narain Verma, Suraj Bhan Bahal and Niranjan Lal. The other tenants did not contest the application. The case of the contesting tenants was that the building under the tenancy was not dilapidated, nor was it required for being demolished and reconstructed. It was also denied that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation. The tenants asserted: that in any case they will suffer irreparable loss, if they were evicted from the building under tenancy. 3. THE Prescribed Authority dismissed all the four applications. The landlord, thereupon, filed four appeals. The learned II Additional District Judge, Allahabad allowed the application of the landlord as against the tenants Nagar Mahapalika and Brijmohan Lal. As regards Suraj Bhan Bahal, also the application of the landlord was dismissed except for verandah on the ground floor which was used by the tenant for tethering cattle. The appeal of the landlord against Om Narain Verma was also dismissed. 4. AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid orders, the landlord has filed two petitions in this court, both directed against the refusal of the courts below to order eviction of Om Narain Verma and Suraj Bhan Bahal, while Suraj Bhan Bahal has filed a petition challenging that part of the order of the appellate court by which the verandah forming part of his tenancy on the ground floor was directed to be released in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders passed by the courts below. So far as the decision of the courts below as regards the case of the landlord under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any error whatsoever. The decision of the courts below rejecting the landlords application under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) is, therefore, affirmed. 5. AS regards the landlord's case under clause (b) of Section 21 (1), the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned II Additional District Judge committed a patent error of law in refusing to consider the affidavit of Sri C. P. Hingorani, the Architect-planner who had filed a certificate along with his affidavit stating that the buildings under tenancy were in a dilapidated condition and had run out their lives. It was urged that the view of the learned II Additional District Judge, that inasmuch as, the affidavit of Sri C. P. Hingorani was not verified by an Oath Commissioner appointed by a District Judge at Allahabad, the same could not be read in evidence. The affidavit of Sri C. P. Hingorani was verified before an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur. Learned counsel contended that having regard to the relevant statutory provisions, the said affidavit was clearly admissible in evidence and the learned II Additional District Judge has gone wrong in holding otherwise. 6. LEARNED counsel for the respondent Sri Suraj Bhan Bahal on the other hand contended that the view of the learned Additional District Judge as to the admissibility of the affidavit of Sri C. P. Hingorani is correct. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that the view of the learned Additional District Judge is manifestly unsustainable. The material provision touching upon the controversy is Sec. 34 (6) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that the view of the learned Additional District Judge is manifestly unsustainable. The material provision touching upon the controversy is Sec. 34 (6) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Section 34 (6) read as follows :- "34 (6) Affidavits to be filed in any proceeding under -this Act shall be made in the same manner and conform to the same requirements as affidavits filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908) and may be verified by any officer or other person appointed by the High Court under clause (b) or by any officer appointed by any other court under clause (c) of Sec. 139 of the said Code." 7. SECTION 34 (1) (b) permits receiving of evidence on affidavits. 8. SUB-section (6) of Sec. 34 is explicit and unambiguous. It provides that affidavits to be filed in any proceedings under the Act may be verified by any officer or other persons appointed by the High Court or by an officer appointed by any other court, under clause (c) of Sec. 139 of the aforesaid Code. The words "or by any officer appointed by any other court" under clause (c) of Sec. 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure are words of very wide amplitute. It is not possible to read in Sec. 34 (6) any restrictions such as have been read by the learned District Judge. There is no warrant for the view that the officer verifying the affidavit in proceedings under this Act must be one appointed by the District Judge of the district in which the case has arisen. In the absence of any such restrictions it is not possible to sustain the view of the learned Additional District Judge. The learned District Judge has, therefore, committed a patent error in refusing to consider the affidavit of Sri C. P. Hingorani on the ground that the same was not admissible, having been verified before an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur. Learned counsel for Sri Suraj Bhan Bahal placed reliance on Sec. 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:- "139. Learned counsel for Sri Suraj Bhan Bahal placed reliance on Sec. 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:- "139. Oath on affidavit by whom to be administered-In the case of any affidavit under this Code- (a) any Court or Magistrate, or any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952), or (b) any officer or other person whom a High Court may appoint in this behalf or (c) any officer appointed by any other Court which the State Government has generally or specially empowered in this behalf, may administer the oath to the deponent". 9. COUNSEL contended that clause (c) would apply only to Oath Commissioners appointed by any other court which the State Government has generally or specifically empowered in that behalf. The learned District Judge has observed that the affidavit in question was verified before an Oath Commissioner appointed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur. There is no material on the record to show that the District Judge. Gorakhpur had not been generally or specially authorised in that behalf by the State Government. The presumption is on the other hand that the District Judge had appointed the Oath Commissioner who had verified the affidavit in question in accordance with law and not otherwise. 10. IN view of what had been stated above, the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to the state of the building has to be reconsidered after taking into consideration, besides other evidence on the record, also the affidavit of Sri C. P. Hingorani. The order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge had, therefore, to be set aside on this short ground alone. In view of the fact that the finding of the learned II Additional District Judge so far as the applicability of clause (b) of Sec. 21 (1) is concerned has to be reconsidered in the light of the observations made above, the decision as regards the portion falling in the tenancy of Suraj Bhan Bahal which has been directed to be released in favour of the landlord has also to be reconsidered. 11. THE result of the aforesaid discussion is that all the three petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned II Addl. District Judge dated 31-5-1979 is quashed except the Decision in Rent Control Appeal no. 11. THE result of the aforesaid discussion is that all the three petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned II Addl. District Judge dated 31-5-1979 is quashed except the Decision in Rent Control Appeal no. 246 of 1978-Santosh Kumar Kesharwani v. Nagar Mahapalika and Rent Control Appeal No. 247 of 1978-Santosh Kumar Kesharwani v. Brij Mohan Lal. The case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Allahabad for being disposed of according to law having regard to the observations made in the judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs of these three petitions. Petitions allowed.