(1.) Cm (M) No.1191/2018 & C.M. Nos.40664/2018
(2.) The respondent/landlord has sought ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question, under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), on bona fide requirement of his daughter-in-law Ms. Sakshi to use and establish her own independent business so as to earn her livelihood from the tenanted premises. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend under Section 25B (4) of DRC Act along with his affidavit in which he, inter alia, pleaded that "the daughter-in-law of the petitioner is not dependent on the petitioner as the son of the petitioner, namely, Sh. Kapil Khanijo is a big/renowned industrialist/businessman and he is running number of companies including the company by the name of J.J. Fab Tex Pvt. Ltd., who is having the 50% of the share holding of the said company and he is also one of the Directors of the said company and the turn over of the said company is approx. Rs.20 Crores per year." This ground was specifically denied in his reply by the respondent. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent to his leave to defend, which was taken on record by the impugned order.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that along with the rejoinder, the petitioner wanted to file two documents which was declined by the learned RC by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (Dead) through his LR s, 2010 2 SCC 15. He argued that there is no such bar to file documents in support of application for leave to defend under Section 25B (4) of the DRC Act or in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh (supra). He urged that since he has already pleaded in his application for leave to defend that the daughter-in-law of the respondent is not dependent upon the respondent as the son of the respondent Sh. Kapil Khanijo has been running number of companies including M/s J.J. Fab Tex Pvt. Ltd., having 50% share holding therein.