SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4947 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NOS.4949/2008,4970/2008, 4973/2008 & 4974/2008 The Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus M/s.Sunrise Lifestyles & Home Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Karandikar i/b S/Shri S.S.Redekar & S.P.Shetye for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. In my opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. : 2 : 3. The argument of the Petitioner that the Petitioner apprehends that Respondent No.2 bank will connive with the Plaintiff and hand over possession of the disputed premises to the Plaintiff, cannot be the basis to hold that the Petitioner who is a third party can be impleaded as party-defendant in the suit purely between landlord and tenant. The cause of the Petitioner cannot be addressed by the Rent Court which has very limited jurisdiction to address the dispute only between landlord and tenant and no more. Thus understood, the Petitioner can neither be said to be necessary nor proper party to the dispute between landlord and tenant. The apprehension of the Petitioner will be addressed in the proceedings taken out by the Petitioner for other appropriate reliefs in the Cooperative Court in relation to the disputed premises. 4. Suffice it to observe that no fault can be found with the Trial Court in rejecting the application for impleadment preferred by the : 3 : Petitioner. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.