(1) WP. 567.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 567 OF 2010 Maharashtra State Board of Wakf Through Chief Executive Officer .. Petitioner VERSUS Syed Shah Saliuddin S/o Syed Shah Fakruddin Jagirdar and anr. .. Respondents Mr. Shaikh Aspah Taher Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. G.D. Shaikh, Advocate for the respondent no.1 Mr. H.D. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : VR. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. The petitioner challenges order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Aurangabad on application (Exh.57) filed in suit (bearing R.C.S. 631 of 2003). The respondent no.1 filed suit for recovery of rent earlier from the respondent no.2. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed application (Exh.57) for impleading itself as a party on the ground that the suit premises are part and parcel of Wakf property. It is the contention of the petitioner that the open plot, whereupon the business of respondent no.1 being run, is part of the property dedicated to burial ground and dargah called Dargah Mohammed Hayat Kirmani Shah. The petitioner's (2) WP. 567.2010 further contention is that, respondent no.2 is tenant on basis of agreement which was executed by him in favour of the petitioner on 31.10.2009. 2] Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant record and the impugned order, it is explicit that previously, there was contested litigation between the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, on two occasions the respondent no.1 filed suit (S.C.C. no.10 of 2009) for recovery of rent as well as rent suit 8 of 2002. Both suits were decreed against respondent no.2 in the past. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner mainly for the reasons that question of ownership was not involved. The trial Court held that the person who is entitled to claim rent is to be considered as landlord. The respondent no.1 had collected the rent since long and twice his suits were decreed in the past. Obviously, the subsequent agreement between the respondent no.2 and the petitioner could not have created new leasehold rights and therefore, the petitioner’s presence in the suit filed by respondent no.1 for recovery of the rent was unnecessary. 3] The question whether the party is a necessary party for the purpose of determination of the controversial issues, is required to be examined on consideration of the impact which may occur on the (3) WP. 567.2010 litigation if such a party is not joined and allowed to participate in the suit proceedings. So, if for the purpose of final and effective adjudication the presence of the party is found necessary, then alone the Court may permit such a party to enter into the arena of litigation. It is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus lites and normally without the consent of the plaintiff, the party may not be joined in the litigation. It is only in exceptional cases, that a party may be allowed to join the litigation even though the plaintiff is unwilling to do so. The arena of such exceptional cases is limited and in such a case it is for the Court to examine whether presence of such a party is likely to render cause of justice to be vindicated and that final adjudication is impossible without presence of such party. In the instant case, the lis between the respondents inter-se is of such a category that presence of the petitioner may not be necessary. Petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps if illegal recovery of the rent is found to have been made by respondent no.1. The discretionary order rendered by the trial Court cannot be termed as arbitrary or perverse so as to warrant indulgence of this Court in the exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp