1 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi WRIT PETITION NO. 7903 OF 2010 Sudha Sudhakar Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Dinesh Bhatt & Ors. ... Respondents ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8705 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner Vs. Dayashankar H. Joshi & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8708 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner Vs. Vishwanath J. Pandey & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.8709 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Shri V.K.Parmar & Ors. ... Respondents 2 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw WRIT PETITION NO. 8711 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Hiralal K. Soni & Ors. ... Respndents WRIT PETITION NO. 8712 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Smt. Kasturben C.Bhatt & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.8714 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Manohar R. Pathey & Ors. ... Respndents WRIT PETITION NO. 8718 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Radhakrishna R. Belkar & Ors. ... Respndents WRIT PETITION NO. 8719 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Hitesh V. Tripathi & Ors. ... Respndents 3 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw WRIT PETITION NO. 8721 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Lalmani K. Pandey & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.8722 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Smt. Motiben G.Varia & Ors. .. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8724 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Smt. Umayaben B.Bhatt & Ors. Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8725 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Shri Chiman H. Joshi & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8726 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Shri Kantilal Varia & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8727 OF 2010 4 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Vallabh Lathia & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8728 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Shri Lalji P. Varia & Ors. ... Respoondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8729 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Smt. Jasumatiben D. Joshi & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO.8730 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Madhuben Kanji & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8731 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Jayram G. Bhanushali & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8732 OF 2010 5 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Smt. Lalitaben B. Mekha & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8733 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner WRIT PETITION NO. 8734 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Manji Bhimji Chandra & Ors. ... Respondents WRIT PETITION NO. 8735 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Shri Ishwarlal Nakkar (deceased) through Legal heirs: 1a) Smt. Madhuben I. Nakkar & Ors. Respnodents WRIT PETITION NO. 8736 OF 2010 Sudha S.Sonar ... Petitioner vs. Dhirajben Chauhan ... Respondents 6 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw Ms.Kranti S.S.Anand,Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Jitendra M. Patil, Advocate, for the respondent No.1. Shri Dnyar Madon, Senior Counsel a/w. Bhavik More, i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co., Advocates fr the respondent No.2. Shri Hira Gummal, Advocate for the respondent nOs. 4 to 10. Shri Manish P. Gitay, i/b. M/s. Nankani & Associates,Advocates, for the respondent nos. 11 & 12. Shri A.I.I. Patel, AGP, for the respondent No.13. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 27th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. All these petitions can be disposed of by this common order. 3. To state in brief, the respondent No.1 in each of these petitions is the original plaintiff and respondent nos. 2 to 12 are the original defendants. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 in all these petitions is residing in Ambika Bhavan Building as a tenant for long time. Disputes arose as to who is the real landlord. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are different builders, each of whom claims to have acquired the rights to redevelop the property and claimed to be landlords. 7 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 claimed to be the L.Rs. of the original landlord and they also claimed to be the landlord. Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 also claimed to have acquired said property and claim to be landlords. As the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in each matter was in dilemma as to who is the real landlord, they filed different suits in the year 2004 before the Small Cause Court for decision and declaration as to who was the real landlord. The Small Cause Court found that the suit should have been filed before the City Civil Court and accordingly, each of the respondent No.1 filed suits before the City Civil Court in the year 2007. Thus, all the suits are in the nature of interpleader suits wherein the plaintiffs have no personal interest except declaration as to whom they should pay rent as their landlord. 4. In July, 2007, the City Civil Court passed a common judgment declaring the respondent No.2, who was defendant No.1 in each of the suits, to be landlord. The said judgment was challenged before this Court in different appeals and it was set aside. The suits were remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the matter afresh as per the directions given therein. As a result of this, the suits are pending before the City Civil Court for hearing and decision afresh. 5. The present petitioner took out Chamber Summons in June 2010 8 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw seeking to be impleaded as a defendant on the ground that she is the real landlady. According to her, she was not aware about this litigation and for the first time, on 27.4.2010, she came to know about pendency of the suits and therefore she filed the Chamber Summons for impleading herself as defendant.. According to the petitioner, in February, 1992, the original landlady Hoorbai had entered into agreement for sale of this property to her for consideration of Rs.10 lakh. and as per the terms of the agreement, she had received the amount and had also executed a power of attorney in her favour. On the basis of the said agreement for sale and the power of attorney, she has become owner of the property and landlady and therefore, she is necessary party in the interpleader suit. 6. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the Chamber Summons on the ground that the petitioner was not a party to the suits or to the appeals in which the order was passed by this Court remanding the suits for hearing and deciding the matters afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the reason given by the trial Court for rejecting the Chamber Summons is not proper. She was not aware about the earlier litigation and, therefore, she could not approach the Courts earlier and merely because she was not party to the suits or earlier appeals decided by this Court request to be impleaded as defendant could not be refused. The learned Counsel for the 9 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw respondents, on the other hand, contended that even on her own showing, the plaintiff cannot claim to be landlady and her remedy will lie elsewhere and, therefore, she cannot be impleaded as defendant in the said suits. 7. After careful consideration of the matters, and particularly the plea of the petitioners, it appears that if the plea of the petitioners is taken on its face value and to be true, still it only indicates that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale with the original landlady and that as per the terms of the agreement, she had also paid the consideration amount and therefore the power of attorney was executed in her favour. For sale of immovable property, transfer of the said property has to be by sale deed, which is compulsorily required to be registered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Admittedly, there is no such sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in each matter had never paid rent to her. They had never attorned tenancy in her favour. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herself that in November, 2003, the petitioner had been to the suit property and the tenants residing in the said building had allegedly approached the police with the complaint against the present petitioner alleging that she was claiming to be landlady. Even though the said agreement is said to be of the year 1992, the 10 WP-7903-10-&-Ors.sxw tenants never accepted her as landlady. She also did not take steps either to get sale deed executed and registered nor she asserted her right over the property for about 17-18 years. She does not become owner of the property unless the property is transferred to her as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. In view of these circumstances, before the petitioner can claim title over the property, she will have to get specific performance of the contract of sale and if she succeeds therein, she would naturally become owner of the property as landlady. In view of these circumstances, I find that as of today, there is no material on the basis of which the petitioner can claim to be landlady. Therefore, it is not necessary to implead her as the defendant in the interpleader suit. However, if she succeeds in getting sale deed executed or if she succeeds in getting the decree for specific performance of contract for sale, naturally, the decision in these suits filed by the respondent No.1 in each matter would be subject to the result of that suit. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)