1 73wp9607-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9607 OF 2010 Soli S. Ragi .. Petitioner V/s. Dilip G. Jhangiani & Ors. .. Respondents And Indian Cotton Mills Federation .. Proposed Respondent ..... Ms. Z. S. Irani for the petitioner. Mr. A. Dasgupta i/b. Mr. Basant Tilskani for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioner made an application before the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit premises. Initially, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were impleaded as respondents in the said application being the landlords. An application was made by the petitioner in the pending standard rent application seeking permission to implead the fifth respondent herein as a party. The said application was opposed by the first to fourth respondents. The application was rejected by the learned trial Judge. A Revision Application was preferred by the applicant before the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. 2 73wp9607-10 The Revision Application has been rejected. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that according to the petitioner the proposed respondent his landlord. Her submission is that the petitioner being the applicant in the application for standard rent, it is the choice of the petitioner to implead a party respondent. Her submission is that the approach of the Courts below is completely erroneous. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the first to fourth respondents submits that in the application for standard rent, there is a categorical admission by the petitioner that the first to fourth respondents are the landlords. He submitted that if the petitioner wants to implead the proposed respondent as the landlord, names of the first to fourth respondents will have to be deleted. He pointed out that the first to fourth respondents have filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner which is pending. 4. I have considered the submissions. According to the case of the petitioner, the proposed respondent (fifth respondent herein) is his landlord and, therefore, in the application for fixation of standard rent filed by the petitioner, he applied for impleading the first respondent who according to him is the landlord. 3 73wp9607-10 5. Merely because the application made by the petitioner is allowed, it will not amount to establishing the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the fifth respondent or it will not amount to saying that the first to fourth respondents cannot claim as landlords. The issue as to who is the landlord of the petitioner always remains open, not only in the pending application for fixation of standard rent but in all proceedings. There was no reason for the Courts below to deny the prayer of the petitioner to implead a party as a respondent who according to the petitioner is his landlord. As far as deletion of the names of first to fourth respondents is concerned, it is for them to take out appropriate application before the trial Court. There was no reason to reject the prayer made by the petitioner. Hence, the petition must succeed and I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned Judgments and orders dated 25th August, 2009 and 27th October, 2010 are quashed and set aside. ii. The application made by the petitioner at Exhibit-20 is hereby allowed. iii. The issue as to who is the landlord of the 4 73wp9607-10 petitioner is expressly kept open, which will be decided at appropriate stage in appropriate proceedings. iv. It is open for the first to fourth respondents to file appropriate application before the trial Court for a direction for deleting their names. v. Writ Petition is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)