1 wp7849 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7849 OF 2011 Ansari Mohammed Gauri .. Petitioner Versus Shakil Ahmed Khalil Ahmed and another ... Respondents Mr. Suresh Shah for the petitioner CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 10rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Surel Shah for the petitioner. 2. The Petitioner claims that he is carrying on a business along with respondent no.1 in the premises covered by a photo pass issued in the name of respondent no.1. The Respondent no.2-MHADA issued notice to respondent no.1 and sought explanation as to why the photo pass should not be canceled. Respondent no.1 has filed suit in the City Civil Court, being Short Cause Suit no. 1453 of 2009 so as to challenge the validity of the said notice issued by respondent no.2. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed an application/chamber summons 2 wp7849 for being joined as party. According to the petitioner, on account of deed of partnership dated 20th November, 2008, the petitioner has right in respect of the premises and that is how he should have been a necessary party. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has rejected the said Chamber Summons No. 774 of 2010 by an order dated 7th September, 2011. This order dated 7th September, 2011 is challenged in this petition. 4. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 5. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has an interest in the property in respect of which the photo pass has been issued cannot be accepted. Partnership deed is not registered. This aspect is required to be held against the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the partnership deed that the petitioner shall be a financier and he will not manage the business affairs. It is also mentioned in the deed of partnership that expenses towards the office premises, rent of the premises will be borne by respondent no.1. It is true that in the clause pertaining to 'Goodwill and Property', it is mentioned that Shop No.1 belongs to both the parties shall be equal and after winding up of the firm, both the partners will share the amount of consideration of the said shop premises 6. In any case, as the photo-pass has been issued in the name of respondent no.1, it is difficult to accept the stand of the petitioner that he has interest in the property. If at all the petitioner had interest in the property, soon 3 wp7849 after the entering in the partnership he should have applied for appropriate direction of MHADA for incorporating his name in the photo pass. In my view, the impugned order is properly passed and no interference is required. 7. The petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)