-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1672 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1432 OF 1995 M/s. Intra Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Versus Sky Build Pvt. Ltd. ..Defendant. And Smt. Balkish Banu Sarriya. ..Applicant. Mr. N. K. Mudnaney for the plaintiff. Mr. Yatin R. Shah for Applicant. Mr. D. G. Rangras for defendant. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 9, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Yatin Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.N. K. Mudnaney, for the plaintiff, Mr. Rangras, for the defendants. This chamber summons is taken out by the applicant for direction to the plaintiff to implead him as party defendant in the suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed above suit against the defendant for specific performance of the agreement dated 31st May 1988. It is the case of the applicant that he is tenant in the suit premises and the predecessor-in-title of the defendant executed an agreement for sale in his favour on 28th August 1974. The applicant had filed Suit No. 5580 of 1985 in the City Civil Court, Bombay for specific performance of the above contract. The same was dismissed. Thereafter the applicant preferred First Appeal in this -: 2 :- Court which is admitted and pending for final disposal. In above circumstances, the applicant claims that he is necessary party to the suit and should be impleaded as party defendant in the above suit. 3. Mr. Madnaney, learned counsel for the plaintiff contested the chamber summons and submitted that the applicant is not privy to the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant and therefore he is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. He relied submitted that the plaintiff is dominus litis. Lastly, he relied upon the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Kasturi v/s. Iyyamperumal [(2005) 6 SCC 733]. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I do not find any substance in the chamber summons. The Apex Court in Kasturi's case (supra) held that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of property a stranger or third party to the contract can be added as a defendant in the suit. This position is distinguished by another bench of the Apex Court in Sumatibai & Ors v/s Paras Finance Co., [(2007) 10 SCC 82] by holding that the decision of the Apex Court in Kasturi's case (supra) will have no application where third party shows a fair semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. 5. The applicant claims some right in the suit property in pursuance of the agreement dated 28th August 1974 executed between himself and predecessor-in-title of the defendant. However, in view of the provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act this agreement itself does not -: 3 :- create any interest in favour of the applicant. The said agreement is not registered one. In these circumstances, the decision of the Apex Court in Kasturi's case (supra) will be applicable to the present case. 6. So far as the applicant's claim of tenancy to the suit property is concerned, if the plaintiff succeeds in suit, he will take the property alongwith the rights of the applicant as tenant, if any. Therefore, the applicant's presence is not necessary to decide the controversy involved in the suit. The applicant is neither necessary nor proper party. In the result, Chamber summons is rejected. (R.V. MORE, J.)