1 WP No.8997/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8997 of 2010 Mrs.Geeta C. Shrikhande ... Petitioner versus (i) Mangesh Keshav Padgaonkar (ii)Chandrashekhar Mukund Shrikhande... Respondents ... Mr. D.B. Sawant for the petitioner CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 19th January 2011. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against an order dated 21 August 2010 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court rejecting the petitioner’s application for joining her as a party defendant to the suit. 2. Respondent no.2 is the husband of the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 is the landlord. Mother of respondent no.2 was a tenant in the suit premises and on her demise in the year 1996, the tenancy of the suit premises was transferred in the name of respondent no.2. In the year 2009, respondent no.1 filed a suit for eviction against respondent no.2. In the said suit, petitioner made an application for joining her as a party. She claims that on death of mother of respondent no.1, she had 2 WP No.8997/10 inherited the tenancy under section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short “the Bombay Rent Act”). Consequently, she is a necessary party to the suit for eviction. 3. In the year 1996, when mother of respondent no.2 died, rent receipt was transferred in the name of respondent no.2. Petitioner did not object for the transfer of the rent receipt in the name of the respondent no.2. She never paid the rent to the landlord. It is the respondent no.2 who has been paying the rent in respect of the suit premises with the knowledge of the petitioner. After lapse of 15 years, she cannot now claim that she has inherited the tenancy as she had not objected for transfer of the tenancy in the name of her husband and has not ever paid rent to the landlord. Consequently, in my view, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the application of the petitioner to join her as a party. Even otherwise, respondent no.1 is dominus litus. He has a right to choose who should join as a party to the suit. If a necessary party is not joined as party to the suit, the trial court would dismiss the suit but a third party cannot compel the respondent no.1 to join the petitioner as party to the suit especially when even according to the respondent no.1, the third party is not a tenant. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J)