1 ARBP994.10.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 994 OF 2010 Mr. Hirji Lakhamshi Gala & Anr. ... Petitioners. V/s. Mrs. Kantadevi Ganpatlal Bavel (Singhvi) & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. S.A. Oak i/b. Mahesh Menon & Co. for the Petitioners. None for Respondent 1. Mr. Mohan Shetty for Respondent 2. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 17th AUGUST 2010. P.C. :- Looking to the body of the Petition, I had called upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to satisfy the Court that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this Petition. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claimed to be the tenant in respect of certain premises. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 was the landlord and Respondent No.1 had entered into an agreement with the Petitioner being agreement dated 3rd May 2006. As per the said agreement, the Petitioner was entitled to get a flat admeasuring 600 and odd sq.ft. (carpet). 2 ARBP994.10.sxw 2. After the said agreement, according to the Petitioners, Respondent no.1 has transferred his rights in respect of the entire property in favour of Respondent No.2. According to the Petitioners, this conduct on the part of Respondent No.1 in transferring rights in regard to the entire building and the suit premises has resulted in a dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1. On this ground, the Petitioners have instituted this Petition against original landlord Respondent No.1 and present landlord Respondent No.2. It is noted that Respondent No.2 is not a party to the agreement between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that presence of Respondent No.2 in this arbitration is absolutely necessary as he has now taken over rights of Respondent No.1 and therefore, the Petition is maintainable against Respondent No.2 also and that the Petitioners are entitled to ad-interim reliefs. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners had drawn my attention to the letter dated 17th July 2007 written by Respondent No.2 to all the tenants including the Petitioners that their rights with reference to the premises would remain un-altered. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that on this count, Respondent No.2 is a necessary party to the Petition and that is how the Petition is maintainable. I am not inclined to accept this argument as there is no specific arbitration agreement between the Petitioners on one hand and Respondent No.2. 3 ARBP994.10.sxw 4 After having understood the nature of the litigation it is clear that the present Respondent No.2 was not a party to the agreement and therefore, the present Petition is not maintainable as between the Petitioners on one hand and Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 on the other. In view of the above, the Petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 5. Hence, the Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)