1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2141 OF 2010 Yakub Taherbhai Gandhi and others Petitioners versus Shabbir Taherbhai Patanwala and another Respondents Mrs.Anita A. Agarwal for petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th March 2010 PC :- 1. The first respondent filed a suit for eviction against second respondent under provisions of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The petitioners have filed a declaratory suit against the first respondent seeking a declaration of tenancy in respect of same premises. An application was made by the petitioners under Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying that they be impleaded in the suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. In revision the District Court has interfered, however, the District Court has directed that both the suits shall be heard together and should be decided by a common judgment. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been residing in the suit premises from their childhood and first respondent has avoided to implead them in a suit for eviction and the first respondent has deliberately filed the suit only against second respondent who is the brother of the petitioners. She submitted that since the petitioners are claiming to be the tenants, they are necessary and proper parties to the suit filed by the first respondent against second respondent. She submitted that if the second respondent does not defend the suit, the first respondent may be successful in obtaining a decree for possession in respect of the suit premises. 3. I have considered the submissions. The suit filed by the first respondent is under section 33 of the said Act of 1999. Considering the limited scope of such a suit and considering the provisions of section 35 of the said Act of 1999, it is obvious that in the suit filed by the respondent, no adjudication can be made as regards rights claimed by the petitioners. Moreover, the decree passed in the said suit will not bind the petitioners. Considering the limited scope of the suit filed under section 33 of the said Act of 1999, the petitioners cannot be said to be either necessary or proper parties. 3 4. The District Court has protected the petitioners by directing that both the suits shall be heard together and shall be decided by a common judgment. In the circumstances, subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)