1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2009 Shri Ramashankar R. Singh. .. Petitioner ( Org. Plaintiff ) Vs 1. Shri Hasmukh V. Ashtik ( deleted ) 2. Harivadan V. Ashtik (Deceased) through L.Rs. 2(a) Smt. Kapila H. Ashtik & Ors. .. Respondents (Org. Defendants) -- Shri Anil Singh i/by Shri D.R. Shah for the Petitioner. Shri R.R. Sharma for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Shri R.A. Karale for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. Notice for final disposal was issued. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the original Defendants. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 2nd May, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes. 2. The 3rd and the 4th Respondents are the Plaintiffs in a suit 2 filed in the year 1992. The suit is for a declaration that they are the tenants in common in respect of the shop premises together with a store room, more particularly described in the Plaint. The Petitioner filed a suit in the year 1993 for a declaration that he is a protected licensee and tenant in respect of a suit premises namely a room admeasuring 10’ x 15’ situate at behind Shop No.1, Palival Villa, J.N. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. A suit has been filed in the same year by the Petitioner for a declaration in respect of another shop premises in the same property. An application was made by the Petitioner praying for a consolidation of all the three suits. The said application was opposed by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. The said application was rejected. Thereafter, on an application made by the Petitioner, two additional issues were framed in the suit filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4. On the basis of the said order, another application was moved by the Petitioner for a consolidation of the three suits. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited my attention to the additional issues framed on 30th August, 2007 in a suit filed by the 3rd and the 4th Respondents. In the said suit filed by the 3rd and the 4th Respondents, the present Petitioner has been impleaded as the 5th Defendant. He pointed out that the additional issues framed are the common issues arising in all the three suits and therefore, all the suits are required to be heard together as the evidence will be common. 3 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and the 4th Respondents opposed the Petition by submitting that earlier application for the same relief was rejected and a revision application preferred against the said order was dismissed. He submitted that the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer inasmuch as if the said prayer is granted, prejudice will be caused to the said Respondents. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The suit No. 2337 of 1992 filed by the 3rd and the 4th Respondents is for a declaration of tenancy in respect of Shop No.1 in the building Palival Villa, J.N. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 along with a store room behind the said Shop No.1. The Petitioner is the 5th Defendant in the said suit. The RAD Suit No.1076 of 1993 filed by the Petitioner is for a declaration of tenancy in respect of the room behind Shop No.1 and the RAD Suit No.226 of 1993 has been filed by the Petitioner for a declaration of tenancy in respect of Shop No.4 in the same building. The Respondents herein are Defendants in the said two suits filed by the Petitioners. 6. On 30th August, 2007, the following additional issues were framed in Suit No.2337 of 1992. ISSUES 1. Does the Defendant No.5 prove that he is deemed tenant/protected licensee in respect of Shop No.4 of 4 the suit premises ? 2. Does the Defendant No.5 prove that he is a tenant to store room situated behind Shop No.1 which being part of the suit premises ? 7. As stated earlier, the additional issues have been framed in Suit No.2337 of 1992 filed by the 3rd and the 4th Respondents. In the suit filed by the 3rd and the 4th Respondents, a declaration of tenancy is claimed as regards Shop No.1 and the room behind Shop No.1. In one of the two suits filed by the Petitioners, the declaration is as regards the room behind Shop No.1 which is subject matter of the said suit filed by the 3rd and 4th Respondents. Now in the suit filed by the 3rd and 4th Respondents, the issues relating to tenancy rights in respect of the property subject matter of all the three suits have been framed, and therefore, it is obvious that the evidence in the three suits will be common to a substantial extent. Earlier application made for consolidation of the suits has been rejected before the aforesaid additional issues were framed. In view of the additional issues framed, it is obvious that the evidence in the three suits will be common and, therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the said application at Exhibit-29. Hence, the Petition must succeed and I pass the following order. (a) The impugned order dated 2nd May, 2009 is quashed 5 and set aside and the Application at Exhibit-29 made by the Petitioner is hereby allowed. (b) Hearing of the suits is expedited. The Trial Court will make an endeavour to conclude the hearing of the suits on or before 31st August, 2010. (A.S.OKA, J)