spb/- 1 wp3689-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3689 OF 2011 Address Home Retail Pvt. Ltd., ... Petitioner. V/s. The Assit. Commissioner “A” Ward, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Anr. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr. Counsel with Amit Jagoo & Ms. Sabdhi Shah i/by Paras Kuhad & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Deepak Chitnis for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2011. P.C. : 1 The petitioner challenges the order dated 21st February, 2011 allowing the application made by the respondent no.2 society under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for joining it as a party to the suit. 2 Respondent No.2 society is the owner of the building. The petitioner is a member/occupier of the shop situated on the ground floor of the building of the society. Respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner under section 354-A of the Mumbai spb/- 2 wp3689-11.sxw Municipal Corporation Act for carrying out unauthorized constructions and alterations in the premises in his occupation. The petitioner filed a suit bearing L.C. Suit No. 2374/ 2010 against the Municipal Corporation, challenging the suit notice. In a suit, the respondent no.2 society appeared with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, requesting that it may be joined as a party to the suit. That application has been allowed. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has filed this petition. 3 In Ranjitsingh Linga vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai [2010 (2) Mh.L.J. 703], this court has taken a view that in a suit filed by an occupier of the property against the Municipal Corporation, challenging the notice of demolition of unauthorized structure, if the owner makes an application of joining him as party to the suit, such application should be allowed. The trial court has followed this decision. No other decision taking a contrary view is pointed out to me. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 4 Writ petition is rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] .....