Chandka 1 CHS-551-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 551 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 194 OF 2011 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 229 OF 2011 M/s. Magcon & Ors. ..Plaintiffs versus Bombay Cranes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ..Defendants And Zenith Computers Ltd. ..Respondent (Pro.Deft. 5) Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kapil Moye, Ms. Tanvi Gandhi and Mr. Sanmish Gala i/b. Markand Gandhi & Co. for Plaintiffs / Applicants. Mr. M. U. Pandey for Defendant No. 1. Mrs. Sushma Singh for Defendant No. 2. Ms. Swati Deshpande i/b. M. Dhruva & Partners for Defendant No. 3. Mr. V. V. Khemka for Defendant No. 5 in Chamber Summons. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 19 April 2011. P.C. : The suit is for specific performance of an agreement which is alleged to have been entered into between the Plaintiff and the First, Second and Third Defendants. By this Chamber Summons the Plaintiffs seek to Chandka 2 CHS-551-11 implead the Respondent as the Fifth Defendant. The Respondent is only a licensee who claims under an agreement of leave and licence dated 25 August 2010, which is registered on the same day. Both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the First Defendant and for the licensee, the Respondent to the Chamber Summons, stated that the licensee does not have any interest in the premises since it is well settled that a licence does not create any interest in an immovable property. Moreover it has been stated on behalf of the First Defendant that upon the expiry of the term of the existing licence, no fresh licence shall be created without seeking the permission of the Court by moving an appropriate application in the suit. Having regard to this position, the impleadment of the Respondent is not warranted. The test which must be applied in such cases is formulated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Singh vs. Shivnath Mishra alias Gadasa Guru 1 and Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors.2 As a bare licensee, the Respondent claims no higher right than the First Defendant in the premises and thus has no interest in the immovable property. He is therefore neither a necessary nor a proper party. The licensee has also stated that the licensee would abide by the result of the suit and by the decree of the Court. In any event the order of impleadment is not warranted. 1 (1995) 3 SCC 147 2 (2005) 6 SCC 733 Chandka 3 CHS-551-11 2. Having regard to the statements which have been made before the Court, the Chamber summons is disposed of. 3. The hearing of the Notice of Motion is adjourned to 7 June 2011. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)