1 WP 5688/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5688 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. J.G. Shukla i/b G.H. Shukla & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. M.M. Malvankar for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 9 April 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, allowing the application of the respondent no.2 for joining it as a party to the suit. 3. Respondent no.2 is the landlord of the suit building. The petitioner is a tenant 2 WP 5688/10 occupying the premises on the third and fourth floor of the suit building. A door is put up in the staircase between the second and third floor of the suit building. According to the respondent no.1 – Municipal Corporation, the door is unauthorised and has been put up without obtaining appropriate permission. Respondent no.1, therefore, issued a notice under section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 proposing to take action. The petitioner filed a suit (L.C. Suit No. 460 of 2009) challenging the said notice. In the said suit, respondent no.2 landlord made an application for joining him as party to the suit. That application was allowed by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.2 is not a necessary party to the suit and therefore the trial court erred in allowing the said application. Admittedly, the respondent no.2 is 3 WP 5688/10 the owner and landlord of the premises. According to him, the door has been put up illegally by the petitioner. In any event, he is a whistle blower who appears to have made a complaint to the respondent no.1 for action against the illegal construction. He being a landlord and also a whistle blower, his presence would certainly aid and assist the trial court in coming to the conclusion whether the door is authorised and/or amounts to illegal construction. The trial court, therefore, committed no error in allowing the application. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)