Mahavir Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Mr. Sundarji Liladhar Shah/Gosar & Ors.

Mr. Sundarji Liladhar Shah/Gosar and Ors. ..Respondents Shri Dipen Furia i/b. M/s. Niranjan & Co. for the petitioner. Shri Anil C. Singh with Anil Yadav and Shreyas Vyas i/b. Bharat Joshi, Advocates for Respondent No.13. P.C. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 31st August, 2012 The order impugned in the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is one allowing the application for impleadment i.e. Chamber Summons No.22 of 2012 filed by the Respondent No.13 society in the Suit in question i.e. S.C. Suit No.2010 of 2011. The said Suit has been filed by the petitioner society for enforcing the obligations under Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 and especially for conveyance of the land on which the building of the society in question stand, inclusive of the baithi chawl in which the members of the applicant society have their shops and also the area 1 of 4 2 wp8135-12-919.sxw where the newly constructed shops in which the members of the applicant society are to be rehabilitated.

It is in the context of the relief sought that the applicant society i.e. Respondent No.13 herein filed the said Chamber Summons. The said Suit in question i.e. S.C. Suit No.2010 of 2011 has been preceded by the Suit filed by the applicant society against owners being Suit No.1252 of 1978. The said Suit was compromised between the parties by filing consent terms and in terms of the said consent terms tenancy rights of the members of the applicant society i.e. the shop-keepers were converted into ownership rights on the shop-keepers paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the owners. It seems that the agreements thereafter were entered into between the shop-keepers and the owners. After the shops wherein the members of the applicant society were to be rehabilitated were constructed, it seems that the owners created some third party rights in respect of some of the shops, as a consequence of which the rehabilitation of the shop-keepers could not fructify.

Since the shop-keepers had not shifted to the newly constructed shops, the Municipal Corporation issued a notice to them for their eviction which resulted in the shop-keepers filing Writ Petition No.2732 of 2003 in this Court which is admitted and is pending. It seems that the owners have also filed a Suit challenging the notice 2 of 4 3 wp8135-12-919.sxw issued by the Municipal Corporation asking them to vacate some of the newly constructed shops. In the said suit, the applicant society initially was not joined as a party but thereafter on an application made by the members of the applicant society was allowed and they have been consequently impleaded in the said Suit filed by the owners. It is in the background of the aforesaid conspectus of facts that the Trial Court deemed it fit to allow the Chamber Summons for the impleadment of the applicant Society. The facts as aforestated, prima facie, disclose that the applicant society has connection with the Suit property and, therefore, any order passed therein would affect it.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner society Shri Furia would make submissions, which in my view, impinge upon the merits of the case of the plaintiffs in the Suit as also the merits of the case of the applicant Society. In my view, at the stage of considering an application for impleadment the said aspect is not material and what is required to be seen is only whether the applicant is either a necessary or appropriate party to the suit.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, even if the applicant society cannot be said to be a necessary party, it is undoubtedly, a proper party 3 of 4 4 wp8135-12-919.sxw whose presence would be required for effectual adjudication of the lis between the parties. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. ) 4 of 4