1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7465 OF 2009 Amarsen Goragandhi & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Tardeo Vyayamshala & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b Mr. Nitin Mulye for the petitioners. Mr. Shrishil Kittael i/b S. Ashwini Kumar & Co. for respondent no. 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order and hence I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise on merits, I am not inclined to interfere for the reasons indicated below. 3. The petitioners are the owners of a property. They filed a suit in the Small Causes Court against the tenant for eviction. The petitioners entered into a development agreement with the respondent no.3 and entrusted the development rights to the 2 respondent no.3. Under the development agreement, the respondent no.3 was to develop the southern portion of the total property. The existing building forms part of the southern portion which is sought to be demolished. The respondent no.3 has been given right to negotiate with the tenants. 4. Disputes had arisen between the petitioners and the respondent no.3 and the petitioners had filed another suit bearing Suit No.1606 of 1983 in this Court concerning the development agreement. Consent terms were filed therein. Clause 5(v) of the consent terms states that the respondent no.3 was given right to receive rents and profits and pay municipal taxes and outgoings. 5. The respondent no.3 made an application in the petitioners’ suit for possession filed against the respondent no.1 tenant for joining him as a party. That application has been allowed and the respondent no.3 has been allowed to be joined as a party. I am of the prima facie view that right has been conferred on the respondent no.3 to develop the property and even to negotiate with the tenants and also to receive rents from the tenants, though that is disputed by the petitioners. That can be decided only at the 3 trial. In view of this position, the view taken by the Trial Court that the respondent no.3 is a proper party and could be joined as a party is a possible view and requires no interference. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)