1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4886 OF 2009 Rekha Kailas Pardesi & Another ..Petitioners versus Nashik Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Nitin Mulye for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Joshi for the respondent No.1 Mr.Sandip Shinde for the respondent No.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the first respondent is the original defendant. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration that the original defendant has no right to cancel lease executed in favour of the petitioners. In the suit the petitioners have claimed that the suit property was initially let out by the original defendant to a third party and the 2 tenancy has been permitted to be transferred by the third party in favour of the petitioners. It is pointed out in the suit that notice was issued by the original defendant to the petitioners on 30.8.2007. 2. An application was made by the second respondent praying for impleading himself as a party defendant to the suit. The said application was made on the ground that on 10.9.2007, a letter was issued by the original defendant (first respondent) by which the first respondent agreed to grant lease in respect of the suit property in favour of the second respondent and that the second respondent has been placed in possession of the suit property. A contention is raised by the second respondent that though the second respondent has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the first respondent, lease has not been executed by the first respondent. The contention is that the 2 nd respondent may be affected by the outcome of the suit. By the impugned order, the said 3 application has been allowed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited my attention to the written statement filed by the first respondent on 4.10.2007. He pointed out that the second respondent has relied upon the letter dated 10.7.2007 issued by the first respondent, but the said letter has not been disclosed in the written statement earlier filed by the first respondent. He pointed out that on the contrary, a contention has been raised in the said written statement that in view of the pendency of the suit, the suit property could not be allotted to any other person. He submitted that thus the entire claim of the second respondent is based on fabricated documents. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is illegal and the petitioners plaintiffs cannot be forced to implead the second respondent as a party. 4. I have considered the submissions. The case made out by the second respondent is that he has been 4 inducted in the suit property by the first respondent and he has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the first respondent. It is true that this factual aspect does not find place in the written statement filed by the first respondent. However, in the reply filed by the first respondent to the application filed by the second respondent, the first respondent has accepted that prior to the institution of the suit a decision has been taken by the first respondent to let out the suit property to the second respondent, but a lease has not been executed though premium has been accepted from the second respondent. 5. The petitioners are claiming rights as lessees in respect of the suit property from the first respondent. The second respondent has claimed that the first respondent has agreed to let out the suit property to him and he has been placed in possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the second respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. Whether any right has 5 been created in favour of the second respondent or whether the documents relied upon by the second respondent are fabricated documents, are the questions which will have to be decided by the trial court on evidence. All those questions are naturally open notwithstanding the impugned order. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.Oka, J.)