1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4186 OF 2004 Cruz Anthony Rodrigues .. Petitioner. Vs. Rita Barretto & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vidyabhushan for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr.Pankaj Kawali i/b Deepak A.Lad for respondent no.7. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 17TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 7.2.2004 passed by the division bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay discharging Interim Notice No.1775 of 1999 in Appeal Stamp No.1165 of 1999 in Ejectment Application No.173 of 1975. Interim notice was taken out by the petitioner for adding the proposed respondents as respondents in the appeal bearing stamp No.1165 of 1999. The appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.1999 in E.A.No.173/E/1975. By this judgment the suit for ejectment, instituted by the respondent-plaintiffs came to be decreed. In the appeal, the interim notice for adding respondent nos.4 to 7 as party respondents was taken out. Such prayer was made on the basis 2 of the case tried to be made out by the petitioner that the petitioner is claiming to be a tenant of the proposed respondent. There is no dispute that a declaratory suit bearing No.5/18 of 1973 was filed by the petitioner against all the respondents including the proposed respondent seeking declaration that he is a tenant in respect of the suit premises. That suit was dismissed and even the appeal filed there against was also dismissed. The present proceedings are between the tenant and the paying guest and in view thereof the court below has rightly held that for resolving the dispute between the parties, the proposed respondents are not necessary parties to the proceedings. After having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons recorded in the impugned order I do not find any infirmity warranting interference by this court in exercise of extremely limited jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and dismissed as such. The hearing of the appeal is expedited. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)