1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6869 OF 2008 Al Farook Kably .. Petitioners Versus Mrs. Hilla Nariman Mistri and others .. Respondents Petitioner present in person Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin i/b Mr. Amin Kherada for Respondents 3 and 4 Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP for Respondent No.5 CORAM: MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED: 28th April, 2009 P. C. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the 20th August, 2008 rejecting his application, in Original Suit against the Defendant/ respondents 3 and 4 for eviction, to join him as party. 3. Original suit is field by the Plaintiffs Landladies i.e. present Respondents 1 and 2 against defendants-present Respondents 3 and 4. In the said suit the present petitioner has made an application for being necessary party to be impleaded in the array of party respondents. It is contended by the petitioner that the said suit premises was initially let out to his father and he was residing with his father. However, after demise of his father in the year 1992 the respondent No.3 who is different relative of the 2 petitioner has, probably, fraudulently acquired the possession of the suit premises and has given wrongful entry to Respondent No.4 i.e. the brother of Respondent No.3. It is contended by him that he had written letter to landlord on 2nd September, 2002 and has pointed out all these facts and also informed him that the tenancy of the flat should not be transferred in the name of Respondent 3. The petitioner has further submitted that these facts were not considered by the Learned Trial court and has wrongfully rejected his application for impleading party. 4. The learned Counsels appearing for the respondents argued and opposed the petition. 5. The impugned letter written by the petitioner is considered by the learned Trial Court as an admission of dispossession of the suit premises and admittedly when the suit was filed, the petitioner was not residing in the Suit premises and, therefore, it was correctly held that the controversy in the original suit would have been decided in the absence of the petitioner and as the petitioner is not necessary party. As such, the impugned order need not be interfered with. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-