Wp 5404/2010 1 SSK/18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5404 OF 2010 Shree Kunthu Impex Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioners Versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Sr.Advocate a/w. Mr.Nagendra Dube, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G. S. Godbole a/w. Mr. Hemang Jariwala i/b. M/s.Auroma Law for Respondent No.6. Mr. R. A. Malvankar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr.Rajadyaksha, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.Godbole, learned Counsel for Respondent No.6. 2. By the impugned order, the application of Respondent No.6 at Exhibit “11” in Municipal Appeal No.101 of 2009 is allowed, thereby impleading them as party-respondent in the aforesaid appeal. The premises in dispute are in possession of the Petitioners. The Petitioners claims that they are the licensee of the said premises. The Respondent Wp 5404/2010 2 No.6 on the contrary claims that the Petitioners are in possession on the basis of conducting agreement which is already revoked. The Respondent No.6 is admittedly the owner of the said premises. In the above circumstances, the Respondents are entitled to contest the appeal filed by the Petitioners before the Small Causes Court at Bombay. I do not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. (R. V. MORE, J.)