MP 1 WP6128_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6128 OF 2010 Shri Sai Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another ... Petitioners Versus Mr. Bhikaji Bapurao Chorge and another ... Respondents Mr. P. M. Shah for Petitioners. Mr. Rakesh D. Dave for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 P. C. : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25th June 2010 vide which the Chamber Summons No. 324 of 2010 in Long Cause Suit No. 559 of 2010 filed by the present petitioners, came to be rejected. 3. The respondent No. 1 - plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondent No. 2 Corporation challenging the notice issued by the respondent No. 2 under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. It is averred by the plaintiff that one Mr. Jal R. Kavarana who was the owner of a land admeasuring 1197 sq. yards I.e. 1000.84 sp. mtrs. with a building consisting of ground plus two upper floors known as Kavarana Building, had permitted the plaintiff's father to use and put a shed in an open space in B Block of Karvana Building MP 2 WP6128_10 for the purpose of doing business of sugarcane juice. The plaintiff contended that the plaintiff's father was running the business of sugarcane prior to the year 1957, and after his death, the plaintiff continued the said business. The contention of the plaintiff was that the notice which was issued by the Corporation was issued at the instance of the respondent No. 2 builder. In the said suit, an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for impleading them as party defendants. It was submitted that the property which is described in the plaint was purchased by the petitioner No. 1 which is the society of tenants of the said Kavarana Building. It was further contended that the petitioner No. 1 in the association with the petitioner No. 2 were developing the said properties, and as such, they were the necessary parties . The said application came to be rejected. Hence the present petition. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the only ground on which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application is that the shop structure is independent and what is conveyed by the said Kavarana to the petitioners is only the land described in the suit and not the structure which is in occupation of the plaintiff. 5. I find that the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court is totally erroneous. Had the Trial Court compared the suit property described in the plaint and the schedule produced on record by the petitioners, it can be seen that the property was one and the same. Not only that, there were specific averments made by the plaintiff himself that one Mr. Arvind Shah, partner of petitioner No. 2 had been approaching the plaintiff for getting vacant and peaceful possession. However, when the plaintiff refused, the said Mr. Shah had threatened MP 3 WP6128_10 the plaintiff. It can thus be seen from the tenure of the plaint that it is the case of the plaintiff that the notice impugned in the suit is given at the instance of the present petitioners. There are specific averments regarding claim of the petitioner No. 1 Society on the land wherein the Kavarana Building was situated. 6. In that view of the matter, I find that for deciding the lis before the Trial Court, the presence of the present petitioners was just and necessary. The petitioners are directly interested in the outcome of the proceedings inasmuch as the structure of the plaintiff is standing on the land which has been conveyed in favour of the petitioner No. 1. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent-plaintiff to carry out the necessary amendment within a period of four weeks from today. 8. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (B.R. GAVAI, J)