Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1769 of 2009 M/s. Padmarekha Arts ...Petitioner v/s. Mahila Seva Mandal, Pune & ors. ...Respondents WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2521 OF 2009 Simply Delicious ...Petitioner v/s. Mahila Seva Mandal, Pune & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Tejesh Dande for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for respondents 2, 3 & 5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 18, 2009 : MARCH 18, 2009 : MARCH 18, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. During the arguments Counsel for the Petitioner has restricted challenge only to orders passed below Exhibit 42 and Exhibit 59 respectively. Application Exhibit 42 was filed by third party under Order I Rule 10 for being impleaded as party defendant to the suit filed by the Petitioner. 3. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the Petitioner is essentially between landlord and tenant in 2 relation to the right to use the tenanted premises. The Court below has rejected the application filed by the third party on the ground that he has no concern with the matter in issue in the suit pending between the landlord and the tenant. 4. In the first place, the said third party had not challenged the correctness of that order. Assuming that the Petitioner has locus to challenge the said order passed below Exhibit 42, I am in agreement with the opinion recorded by the Lower Court that the third party has no concern with the matters in issue between the landlord and tenant. The relief that the Petitioner would claim against the third party would be in the nature of dispute relating to civil rights of the Petitioner. That cannot be part of the proceedings pending before the Rent Court which has special exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between landlord and tenant only. Thus understood the order passed below Exhibit 42 warrants no interference. 5. In so far as Application Exhibit 59 is concerned, the same was filed by the Petitioner praying for amendment of the pleadings so as to incorporate several issues pointing out that the third party has developed the other property of the landlord. The purpose of proposed amendment was to seek relief against the third 3 party. The Court below has rightly rejected the said proposed amendment as that had no concern with the matter in issue between the landlord and tenant. In the present case, the Petitioner-tenant filed suit for perpetual injunction against the landlord on the basis of rights in respect of tenanted premises. Whereas landlord filed counter claim and has sought decree of eviction which has been granted by the Lower Court. The real controversy is, therefore, whether the tenant should be evicted from the suit premises on the grounds pressed into service by the landlord and if the said issue was to be answered in favour of the landlord, the question of considering grant of perpetual injunction to the tenant as prayed would not arise. 6. Taking any view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction in the fact situation of the present case. Dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]