SUNNI MUSLIM CHOTA QABRASTAN Vs. ANISUDDIN MOHAMMAD JAMIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dtd. 12/4/2022 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1980 of 2019 by the Bombay City Civil Court, inter alia, rejecting the Application for impleadment of the Petitioner in Long Cause Suit No. 1923 of 2019. Petitioner - Waqf is the owner and landlord of the Suit property described as Shop No. 1 and 1A situated on the ground floor at the corner of Chhota Sonapur, 250, Maulana Shaukatali Road, Mumbai-400 008. According to Petitioner, Respondent no. 1 is its tenant. Respondent No. 1 carried out illegal additions and alterations in the Suit Shop. On complaint filed by Petitioner, Corporation issued statutory Notice under Sec. 351 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short 'MMC Act') to Respondent No. 1. This notice is challenged by Respondent No. 1 in the City Civil Court.

(2.) Dr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for Petitioner would contend that the impugned order dtd. 12/4/2022 rejects the impleadment Application of Petitioner landlord to the Suit on the premise that Plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as a party to his Suit, inter alia, if no relief is prayed against such a party. He has drawn my attention to the impugned judgment at page No. 8 of the Writ Petition and on going through the same, it is seen that such findings are returned in paragraph No. 19 by the Trial Court resultantly, dismissing the impleadment Application.

(3.) He would submit that post the impugned decision, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Babulal Avasthi Vs Munna Nizamuddin Khan and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2559 has settled the legal position for impleadment of the landlord to a conflict arising out of issuance of statutory Notice under Ss. 351 and 354A to his / its tenant and the said Notice having been challenged in a Civil Suit. He would immediately draw my attention to the above decision and the decision of the Supreme Court dtd. 12/2/2024 upholding the above decision in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3374 of 2024. He would therefore contend that the impugned judgment is contrary to settled legal position and deserves to be set aside, resultantly, impleading the Writ Petitioner as a party to the Long Cause Suit No. 1923 of 2019.