Bombay High Court
Ashok Babulal Avasthi vs Munna Nizamuddin Khan And Anr on 18 April, 2023
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
1/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6933 OF 2022
Ashok Babulal Avasthi .... Petitioner
versus
Munna Nizamuddin Khan & Anr. .... Respondents
.......
• Mr. Pradeep Thorat i/b. Aditi S. Naikare, Advocate for Petitioner.
• Mr. Datta Mane a/w Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for Respondent
No.1.
• Mr. R. Y. Sirsikar, Advocate for Respondent No.2/BMC.
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 18th APRIL 2023
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr.Pradeep Thorat, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Datta Mane, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. R. Y. Sirsikar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/BMC.
2. This Petition challenges the order dated 12/04/2022 passed by the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali Nesarikar ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 ::: 2/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Chamber Summons No.1115 of 2015 in LC Suit No.3439/2013. By the impugned order, the learned Judge had dismissed the Chamber Summons, which was filed by the Petitioner for being impleaded as a Defendant in the said suit. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit property. The Respondent No.1 is the Original Plaintiff and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short 'MCGM'), who are the Respondent No.2 herein, are the sole Defendant in the said suit.
3. The suit property is the premises bearing survey No.129 Hissa No.4 approximately admeasuring 1200 sq.ft., being No.2/A, Ground Floor known as Awasthi Estate, Bal Bhat Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063. The suit was filed with the prayer that the Defendant i.e. the MCGM be restrained permanently from demolishing and/or removing the suit premises or any part thereof, without following the due process of law. According to the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, he was in occupation and possession of the suit premises. In the plaint it is ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 ::: 3/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt mentioned that the officers of the MCGM/Defendant had threatened the Plaintiff to remove the suit structure, failing which it would be demolished by the Corporation.
4. In this suit, the Chamber Summons was filed by the Petitioner claiming that the Plaintiff had filed suit behind his back in respect of the Petitioner's plot of land. This Chamber Summons was dismissed by the impugned order. It was observed that though the Petitioner was the landlord of the property in possession of the Plaintiff, then also he was not a necessary party to decide the real controversy in this matter. The dispute about the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Petitioner herein and their rights were not the subject matter of the suit. He further observed that the relief claimed by the Plaintiff, in this particular suit, could be decided in the absence of the landlord/Petitioner herein and therefore the Petitioner was held to be not a necessary party to the suit.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 ::: 4/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ali Momonji Vs. Lalji Mavji & Ors., as reported in (1996) 5 SCC 379, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the landlord has a direct and substantial interest in the demised building before the demolition of which notice for demolition was issued. In the event of its demolition, his rights would materially be affected. His right, title and interest in the property demised to the tenant or licensee would be in jeopardy. Under those circumstances, the landlord was a proper party, though the relief was sought for against the Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolition of the building.
6. Mr. Thorat also relied on the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.7074 of 2016 in the case of Nimesh J. Patel Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr., which was decided along with the other Petitions. The learned Single Judge after referring to Ali Momonji's judgment (supra) also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 ::: 5/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt in the case of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, as reported in 2020 (14) Supreme Court Cases 392 and the learned Judge ultimately came to the conclusion that the owner of the property who has right, title and interest in the same, would be affected by the outcome of the proceedings as a necessary party.
7. Mr. Thorat fairly submitted that another Single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Deju Somaya Salian Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, in Writ Petition No.7123 of 2018 had passed an order on 24/09/2018 taking a different view from the one in Nimesh Patel's case (supra). In this case of Deju Salian, the learned Single Judge referred to both the judgments of Ali Momonji (supra) and Mohamed Hussain (supra) and observed that he was bound by the later judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi (supra) and ultimately it was held that the Plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as a party to his suit unless it is held keeping in view ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 ::: 6/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt the pleadings and the relief claimed therein that a person sought to be added as a party is a necessary party and without his presence neither the suit can be proceeded with nor the relief can be granted.
8. Thus, the learned Single Judge in the case of Deju Salian (supra) has expressed a contrary view to the one expressed by another Single Judge in Nimesh Patel's case (supra). In Nimesh Patel's case (supra), this particular order passed in Deju Salian (supra) was not pointed out. Thus, it is quite apparent that there are two conflicting views expressed by two Single Judges of this Court referring to the two same Supreme Court Judgments in Ali Momonji (supra) and Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi (supra). To resolve this apparent conflict, it is necessary to refer this issue to a Larger Bench.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that necessary orders be passed in this case.
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 :::
7/7 908-WP-6933-22.odt
10. In this case it is necessary to refer this issue to a Larger Bench. For that purpose I am relying on the provisions of Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. The issue for reference is formulated as follows;
"Whether in a suit filed by the occupant or tenant for protection of a structure against demolition by the Authorities, whether the owner or the landlord is a necessary party?"
11. The Registry shall place this matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for assigning this matter to an appropriate Larger Bench.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2023 02:41:59 :::