SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5850 OF 2008 Jagannath Thakur ...Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation for Gr.Bombay & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Sudhir Sakhardande i/b Mrs.S.S.Wagh for Petitioner. Mr.A.K.Nandanwar for Respondent No.1. Mr.D.H.Mehta with Mr.Anil Rao i/b Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co. for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 26, 2008. AUGUST 26, 2008. AUGUST 26, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, the Court below was right in proceeding on the basis of assertion of the Applicant before it that the Applicant (Respondent No.2 herein) is the owner of the land on which the suit structure is situated. Counsel for the : 2 : Petitioner, however, submits that Respondent No.2 has not treated the Petitioner as his tenant in respect of the disputed structure. For that reason, the Respondent No.2 is not entitled to be impleaded as party Defendant to the Suit filed by the Petitioner challenging the notice under Section 351 of the Corporation Act in respect of the disputed structure. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Aliji Monoji & Co. v.Lalji Mavji & M/s.Aliji Monoji & Co. v.Lalji Mavji & M/s.Aliji Monoji & Co. v.Lalji Mavji & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 64 Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 64 Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 64, will have no application to such a situation. It is not possible to countenance this submission. In the first place, the Petitioner in Paragraph 5 of the Plaint has proceeded on the assumption that the predecessor of Respondent No.2 has become the owner of the property on which the disputed structure is situated. If that is so, the Respondent No.2 is entitled to get impleaded as party to the Suit filed by the Petitioner as he has direct interest in the outcome of the said proceedings. The fact that Respondent No.2 has recently become owner of : 3 : the property will make no difference and the principle expounded by the Apex Court in Aliji’s case (supra) will nevertheless will have to be applied to the case on hand. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to Paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed before the Trial Court dated 14th July 2008 where the Petitioner has asserted that he has become the owner in respect of the disputed property by virtue of adverse possession. That is not the issue which is required to be gone into by the Court below in the present Suit. The fact that the predecessor of Respondent No.2 has become owner has been conceded by the Petitioner in Paragraph 5 of the Plaint itself. The limited issue that will have to be considered by the Trial Court in the Suit pending between the parties is about the legality of the notice issued by the Corporation under Section 351 and no other issue raised by the parties. In that, the issue regarding the relationship of Plaintiff and Respondent No.2 and about the title to the suit property will not be relevant for the present : 4 : proceedings. 5. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Court below in allowing the Chamber Summons. No case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.