- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5751 OF 2009 Tazddin Kasam Modsa Hirani ... Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. ... Respondents *** Mr. Satish Shah i/b Mr. A. M. Rajabally, for the Petitioner. Mr. I. M. Vohra i/b Jitendra Patil, for Respondents. *** CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : JULY 31, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed a suit for injunction against the respondent/Corporation. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of a shop premises. An application was made by 2nd to 6th respondents before the trial Court during pendency of the suit. The application was made under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking their impleadment in the suit. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has directed the petitioner to implead 2nd to 6th respondents/landlords as party defendants to the suit. - 2 - 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the notice of demolition issued by the first respondent/Corporation under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 which is the subject matter of challenge in the suit. The alleged unauthorized construction as shown in the notice is – (i) unauthorized erection of glass panels beyond a building line of a length of 1.9 cm. having height of 2.80 on the south- west corner of the shop; (ii)unauthorized construction of brick-masonry wall with M.S. Grills above it, in the compulsory open space of the building; (iii)unauthorized erection of M.S. Grills & M. S. Sheets in the C.O.S. of building. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that it is the case of the petitioner that the construction of brick masonry wall which is a subject matter of the notice has been made by 2nd to 6th respondents who are admittedly landlords of the premises. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. [(1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 524]. He invited my attention to the relevant observations made by the Apex Court. He submitted that in the present case the allegations of unauthorized construction relate to the shop premises of which petitioner is admittedly a tenant. Relying upon the said decision, he submitted that the landlords are neither necessary nor proper parties. He pointed out - 3 - that an attempt was made by the landlords to evict the petitioner by filing a suit for eviction against the petitioner and after the said attempt failed, at their instance, the Municipal Corporation issued the notice. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The admitted position is that a part of the offending structure has been constructed by the 2nd to 6th respondents who are the landlords. The petitioner is claiming relief even in respect of the said offending structure. Considering this aspect, the trial Court has passed a discretionary order under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore, rejected. [ A. S. OKA, J.]