JITENDER KUMAR vs KAMLESH GARG

Judgment text excerpt

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26th, August, 2025 + CM(M) 19/2025 & CM APPL. 4734/2025 JITENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma, Mr. Atishay Jain and Ms. Tarang, Advocates versus KAMLESH GARG .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Mr. Vinit Kumar and Mr. Aashrey Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. 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. 2. 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, Si