IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2009 Atul Dhirajlal Gohil & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Chirag Shah i/b Mr.J.J.Shah for Petitioners. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for Respondent No.1. Mr.Manoj Kumar Upadhyay for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 13, 2009. MARCH 13, 2009. MARCH 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Malvankar waives notice for Respondent No.1. Mr.Upadhyay waives notice for Respondent No.2. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is : 2 : taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court (Dindoshi Branch) at Mumbai dated 4th September 2008 in Chamber Summons No.292/2008 in L.C.Suit No.33 of 2007. By the said order, the Respondent No.2’s application for impleading as party Defendant in the pending Suit has been allowed. The Respondent No.2 moved the said application on the assertion that she has the owner in respect of the suit property and is subsisting right, title and interest therein. Indeed, the Court below has referred to entries in the PR Card and the notice issued by the Assistant Assessor and Collector but has not adverted to the efficacy of documents relied by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to show that Respondent No.2 has no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property. The Trial Court curiously observed that - that issue has to be decided at the trial. This approach is manifestly wrong. The question about title of the Respondent No.2 in respect of the suit property is : 3 : not germane to the Suit filed by the Plaintiff questioning the correctness of the notice issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act to initiate action in relation to the suit structure being unauthorised one. At the same time, the landlord or the owner of the property though entitled to be impleaded as party Defendant to such a Suit has to satisfy the Court before his request is accepted that he has a subsisting right, title and interest in the suit property. That opinion will have to be indeed prima facie as it is not resolving the issue of title of the party as such. 5. Thus understood, the order impugned in this Petition cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, the same deserves to be set-aside and instead, the parties relegated before the Trial Court for reconsideration of Chamber Summons No.292 of 2008 on its own merits in accordance with law. 6. It is once again made clear that the Trial Court will have to consider the efficacy of : 4 : documents relied upon by the Petitioners, which according to the Petitioners would indicate that the Respondent No.2 has no subsisting right, title and interest in the suit property. The argument of the Respondent No.2 that the Petitioners themselves have conceded the status of the Respondent No.2 that he is landlord, is a matter which can be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits. 7. The parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 30th March 2009 on which date, the Trial Court may proceed with the hearing of the restored Chamber Summons and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably not later than 30th April 2009. The Trial Court shall bear in mind that pendency of this Application would result in protracting the Suit filed by the Plaintiff for declaration. Ordered accordingly. 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.