- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMMONS NO.898 OF 2008 in SUIT NO.1711 OF 2008 Victory Auto Works .. Plaintiff vs Firdosh Minocher Homavazir .. Defendant & Haji Karim Mohammed Suleman Charitable Trust..Applicant .. Mr.D.D.Madon Sr.Advocate i.b M/s Prakash & Co for Plaintiff Mr.R.M.Vanoo for Defendant Mr.M.S.Doctor i.b M/s Federal Rashmikant & Co for Applicant CORAM: R.V.MORE,J DATE: November 11, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, plaintiff, and defendant. The present Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicants for impleading him as defendant in the above suit. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for possession of the suit property. Plaintiff claims that the defendant was appointed for conduct of the business in the suit property. The defendant on the contrary claims to be a sub-tenant. 2. The applicant-trust is admittedly owner of the suit property which was given to the plaintiff under a lease - 2 - agreement. The applicant has filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai against the plaintiff as well as the defendant for eviction on the ground of illegal sub- tenancy. Applicant submits that the present suit is collusive one and filed in order to defeat the rights of the applicant and therefore the applicant is a necessary/proper party to the suit. An apprehension was also expressed that the plaintiff and the defendant will obtain a collusive order in the suit. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I find that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. In the present suit, the Court is called upon to decide whether the suit premises was given to the defendant to conduct the business or the defendant is plaintiff’s sub-tenant. Whatever be the outcome of this suit, that will not bind the applicant as much as applicant is not a party to the present proceedings. In order to decide the issue in question in my view, presence of the applicant is not necessary. The plaintiff is dominus litis and therefore, it is for him to implead parties. It is always open for the defendant to argue that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. In this regard, reliance can be placed in the judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in AIR 1988 Bombay 300.(Luis Roberto Vaz vs Roque Silvestre Vaz & anr. It was held - 3 - that the Court can order impleadment of a particular person if he is necessary party. However, such directions cannot be given in cases of proper party. 4. Apprehension of the applicant that the present suit is a collusive suit and the same is filed in order to defeat his rights is also without any substance. Firstly, the defendant has already taken a stand that he is a sub-tenant of the plaintiff and secondly even assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff and the defendant obtains collusive decree, the same will not bind the applicant. In the above circumstances, Chamber Summons is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed. R.V.More, J - 4 -