1 WP 831/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 831 OF 2010 Mrs. Hansa Mangaldas Mehta .. Petitioner V/s Kamlesh Patel & Anr. .. Respondents Manoj Kumar Upadhyay for the petitioner. Mr. B.P. Shukla for respondent no.1. Mr. R.A. Malanokar for respondent no.2. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. 2. Counsel for the respondents waive service. 3. Heard counsel. 4. The petitioner is a joint lessee of the land on which the building known as “Neelgiri Apartments” has been constructed and also owns a flat in the building. The petitioner noticed unauthorised construction being made by respondent no.1 in his flat. He, therefore, lodged a complaint with the respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation for taking action. Respondent no.2 issued a notice to the respondent no. 2 WP 831/10 1. Respondent no.1 thereafter filed a suit, bearing L.C. Suit No.1561 of 2008, in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi against the respondent no.2 for a declaration that the notice issued by it was illegal and for an injunction restraining it from demolishing the alleged unauthorised construction. The petitioner made an application therein for joining him as a party to the suit. That application was rejected. That order is impugned in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the petitioner has no interest in the premises, i.e. flat no.6, which belongs to respondent no.1 and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit. Consequently, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the petitioner’s application. 6. The submission cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner is a joint lessee of the land on which the building has been constructed. He also owns one flat in the very building. He is a taxpayer of respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation as also a neighbour of the respondent no.1 and a co-owner of the land on which the building is constructed. If not anything, he is also a whistle blower who has interest in 3 WP 831/10 ensuring that no unauthorised construction is carried out in the building in which he resides. His presence in the trial would certainly help the Court in determining the real issue in controversy, namely whether respondent no.1 has at all made any unauthorised construction or changes in the flat in the same building. Consequently, the trial court ought to have allowed the application. 7. For these reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The application of the petitioner for joining the petitioner as a party to the suit is allowed. Respondent no.1 is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint within 4 weeks hereof. If the amendment is not so carried out, the suit shall stand dismissed for non-compliance of this order and also under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)