Jitender Kumar vs. Kamlesh Garg
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jitender Kumar (tenant), sought to amend his application for leave to defend by incorporating two new paragraphs, 10-A and 10-B. The proposed paragraph 10-A alleged that the respondent (landlord) was misleading the court by claiming the suit premises were needed for her grandson, Deepanshu Garg, who was allegedly a partner in a GST-registered firm, Janardan Industries. The proposed paragraph 10-B stated that the landlord owned another vacant shop at 501, Teliwara, Shahdara, where a street vendor paid rent to the landlord. The learned Controller refused permission to amend the application. The tenant filed a petition before the High Court challenging this order.
Held
The Court allowed the petition in part. The tenant was permitted to incorporate paragraph 10-B into his application seeking leave to defend. The tenant's counsel did not press for the incorporation of paragraph 10-A. The landlord's counsel conceded to the incorporation of paragraph 10-B, clarifying that this did not constitute an admission of any fact. The Court directed that the landlord would be at liberty to file an additional affidavit concerning the incorporated paragraph 10-B. The matter was scheduled for further consideration before the learned Controller.
Key Issues
1. Whether the tenant should be permitted to amend his application for leave to defend by incorporating proposed paragraphs 10-A and 10-B, concerning the landlord's alleged misleading statements about the need for the premises and the landlord's ownership of alternate accommodation, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? Contentions: Petitioner (Tenant): Argued for the incorporation of both paragraphs 10-A and 10-B to present relevant facts regarding the landlord's alleged misleading statements and possession of alternate accommodation. Respondent (Landlord): Did not object to the incorporation of paragraph 10-B, but this concession was stated to be without prejudice to their rights and contentions and not an admission of facts. The judgment does not record specific arguments against the incorporation of paragraph 10-A, other than the Controller's refusal.
Sections Cited
Order VI Rule 17 CPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The present petition seeks exception to order dated 22.08.2024 whereby the learned Controller has refused to grant any permission to tenant (petitioner herein) to amend his application whereby he is seeking leave to defend.
By virtue of application moved under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the tenant wanted incorporation of two new paras as 10-A and 10-B. Such proposed paras read as under:- “10A. That the deponent herein submits that the petitioner is misleading this Hon’ble court of law by stating that the petitioner wants the suit premises for her grandson. It is pertinent to mention here that her grandson, namely, Deepanshu Garg is duly acting as operating partner of a partnership firm named as “Janardan Industries” being GSTIN 09AAPFJ0081MIZW situated at P-78, Textile Centre Pilkhuwa- District Hapur (UP-245304). Further it is pertinent to mention here that the said firm is duly registered with the GST department and records are emphatically showing that grandson of the petitioner herein i.e. Sh. Deepanshu Garg is the partner of said partnership firm. Moreover, U.P. Pollution control board also sent notice to Deepanshu Garg (Grandson of the petitioner) stating him as partner of the above-stated Janardan Industries, which makes it crystal clear that entire story of petitioner in its eviction petition was misleading and concocted. Copy of GST records,
CM(M) 19/2025 2
Photographs, notice of UPPCB and visiting card of partnership firm namely, Janardan Industries is annexed herewith and same is marked as ANNEXURE R1-A.
10B. That the petitioner herein is owner of one Shop bearing no. 501, Teliwara, Shahdara, which is absolutely lying vacant and one street vendor is a tenant of the petitioner herein, who use to place his shop on footpath i.e. in front of the above stated shop of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the said street vendor pay rent/charges to the petitioner in order to place his shop/stall in front of above-stated shop of the petitioner. Accordingly, it can be seen that the petitioner herein is already in possession of one more shop/alternate accommodation. Current photographs of the shop bearing no. 501, Teliwara, Shahdara is annexed herewith and same is marked as ANNEXURE R1-B”.
After hearing arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant submits that he does not press incorporation of the averments made in the proposed Para 10-A as above and learned counsel for respondent/landlord, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, submits that he would have no objection if the averments made in the Para 10-B are directed to be incorporated. He supplements that his such concession may not be construed as any expression with respect to admission of any fact.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed in part and the tenant is permitted to incorporate aforesaid Para 10-B in his application seeking leave to defend.
The matter is reportedly fixed for further consideration before the learned Controller tomorrow and the landlord would be at liberty to file additional affidavit with respect to incorporation to Para 10-B only.
Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 26, 2025/dr/js
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.