1 CHS327.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 327 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 2539 OF 2009 Nadeem M. Oomerbhoy ... Plaintiff v/s Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy & ors. ... Defendants And Aresh Aspandiar Irani & ors. ... Applicants/ Intervenors Mr.Zulfi Jariwala i/by Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the plaintiff. Mr.Narichania i/by Desai, Desai Carrimjee & Mulla for defendant No.1. Mr.Sailesh Thakkar for defendant No.9. Mr.V.Dhond i/by FZB & Associates for the intervenor. CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATED: 19TH APRIL, 2011 P.C.: 1. Leave granted to amend the cause title of the suit to the extent of deleting the name of the deceased applicant No. 1 and joining his wife as applicant No.1. Amendment to be 2 CHS327.11 carried out on or before 21.4.2011. 2. By this chamber summons, the applicant seeks an order and direction of this Court against the plaintiff to amend the suit and to add the name of the applicants/intervenors as party defendants thereto. The applicants further seek directions against the plaintiff to strike out Item No.2(b)(ii) from Exhibit “C” to the plaint. 3. The present applicants are claiming to be the trustees of a private trust which owns the building known as Dhun Abad, Warden Road, Mumbai. Admittedly, the above suit is for dissolution of the partnership firm, namely, Bombay Soap Factory and for other consequential reliefs. In Exhibit “C” to the plaint, the assets of the partnership firm are set out. Item 2(b)(ii) of the said exhibit shows that the partnership firm is the tenant in respect of the flat located on the first floor of the building known as Dhun Abad, at Warden Road, Mumbai. The learned advocate appearing for the applicants/ intervenors informs the Court that they have terminated the tenancy of the defendants and three suits have been filed by them seeking eviction of the defendants. It is submitted that the defendants therefore cannot be heard to say in the present suit that the firm is a tenant in respect of the said flat at Dhun Abad building, Warden Road, Mumbai. 3 CHS327.11 4. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties, in my view, the reliefs sought in the chamber summons need not be granted. However, it is clarified that the orders passed, if any, in the present suit qua the said flat, more particularly described in Item 2(b)(ii) of Exhibit “C” to the plaint shall be subject to the final outcome of the decision in the suits filed by the applicants before the Small Causes Court being (1) RAE Suit No.809/3046 of 1982, (2) RAE Suit No.650/1142 of 2008 and (3) RAD Suit No.1131 of 1995. 5. The chamber summons is accordingly disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) 4 CHS327.11