1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1499 OF 2000 IN SUIT NO. 2398 OF 1992 Navyug Dal Mills & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Satyam Enterprises ...Defendant. And Nishuvi Corporation ... Applicant .... Mr.Shailesh Shah with Ms.Maya Sarkar i/by M.Munim & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Ashok Kalande, i/by Vivek M. Sharma (for the Applicant) Mr.J.K.Hegde for respondent-Court Receiver. .... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 23rd November, 2009. P.C.- 1. The applicant-landlord has taken out this chamber summons in a suit filed by the plaintiff for alleged possession of the business, as well as, articles, lying in the premises owned by the landlord-applicant. 2. Admittedly, the landlord has already filed a suit for possession of the premises against all the parties including plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs were conducting business based upon the agreement. It is difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel appearing 2 for the plaintiffs that the applicant has no interest in the premises, as well as, in the litigation in question. Whatever the consequences of the pendency of the suit, as filed by the applicant/landlord, and/or any decision in the present suit, the applicant’s interest and right just cannot be overruled. Therefore, in my view, for a proper adjudication of this suit, the presence of landlord-applicant is necessary. The Receiver is in possession of the suit premises in view of the order passed by the Court at the instance of the plaintiffs. 2. The chamber summons is accordingly allowed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs seeking stay of this order. The operation of this order is stayed for eight weeks. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)