M/S. RAVIRAJ DEVELOPERSversusSHRI. MAHESH LALJIBHAI PORIYA AND ANR

                      Sonali Mane                                                    23-WP-12711-2019.docx



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 12711 OF 2019


                      M/S. Raviraj Developers                                        … Petitioner
                               Versus

                      Shri. Mahesh Laljibhai Poriya And Anr.                         … Respondents



                      Mr. Nakul Jain a/w Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Ms. Sneha Patil and Mr. Bhavya
                      R. Shah i/b Maniar Srivastava Associates for Petitioner.

                      Ms. N. Goradia for Respondent No.1.

                      Mr. Santosh Mali for Respondent No.2-BMC.



                                                            CORAM          : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                            DATE           : 1 OCTOBER 2026.

                      P.C. :


                      1)            The Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of the Chambers
                      Summons for his impledment in the suit filed by the Plaintiff
                      challenging the notice issued by the Minister Corporation under
                      Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.



                      2)            The law appears to be now well settled on account of
                      judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Babulal Avasthi Vs.
                      Munna Nizamuddin Khan & Anr.1 and Raj Garden Co-operative
   MANE
   SONALI
                      Housing Society Limited Vs. Mahendra Arjun Shinde & Anr. 2.
   DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP
Date: 2026.10.06
                           1 2024 (2) Mh.L.J. 322.
11:02:29 +0530
                      2 Writ Petition No. 9697 of 2026 decided on 7 September 2026
                                                        ___Page No.1 of 3___
                                                           1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                              23-WP-12711-2019.docx



In Raj Garden Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra), this Court
has held in paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 17 as under:



              15. It is well-recognized that where the owner or landlord of the
              premises over which the offending structure is stated to be situated
              approaches the Court seeking impleadment, ordinarily the Court shall
              exercise the discretion to implead such owner/landlord as a party
              defendant to the suit wherein the legality and validity of the action of
              the Municipal Corporation in regard to the offending structure is
              questioned. In such a situation, the landlord/owner can be said to have a
              direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, and not a commercial
              interest. The order that may be passed by the Civil Court in regard to the
              legality and validity of the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation
              and the action sought to be initiated by the Municipal Corporation qua
              the purported offending structure would affect the rights of the
              owners/landlord.


              16. A profitable reference, in this context, can be made to a judgment of
              a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Ashok Babulal Avasthi vs.
              Munna Nizamuddin Khan and anr. 3, wherein, on a reference, the
              Division Bench has held that in a suit challenging the legality and
              validity of a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation instituted by the
              tenant, the exercise of discretion by the Court to implead the
              owners/landlord would be in consonance with law. It was enunciated
              that, where a landlord applies to become a party to a suit wherein the
              legality and validity of a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation is
              called in question, the aspect of exercise of discretion under Order I Rule
              10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 crops up for consideration.
              This Court has consistently exercised its discretion for last five decades
              to allow such a joinder. This exercise of discretion has become a well
              established practice. The Division Bench concluded as under:


                   “32. Answering the question, we hold that in a suit filed by the occupier/
                   tenant/ licensee seeking to restrain the local authority from taking action
                   of demolition against the property, where the landlord/ owner of the
                   property seeks impleadment, the Court is empowered to permit the same
                   exercising the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure
                   on the premise that the landlord/ owner is a proper party. Such a
                   direction by the court in this fact situation would be a sound exercise of
                   discretion consistent with the long-standing use of discretion in this
                   manner. Refusal to permit such a joinder by not accepting the
                   landlord/owner as a proper party would be an improper use of discretion
                   and be liable to be set aside.”
                                                                         (emphasis supplied)



                                    ___Page No.2 of 3___
                                       1 October, 2026
Sonali Mane                                                        23-WP-12711-2019.docx



              17. In the case at hand, the description of the property given in the
              impugned notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, as well as the
              speaking order, clearly reveals that the alleged offending structure is
              situated on the property bearing CTS No. 128A/40 now further
              subdivided into CTS Nos. 128A/40/1 and 128A/40/2. And those properties
              belong to Raj Garden Co-operative Housing Society Limited, the
              petitioner.



3)            In my view, therefore, the Petitioner has a right to get himself
impleaded in the suit in his capacity as the owner of the property. In
that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28 August 2019 is set
aside and Chamber Summons No. 660 of 2015 is made absolute in
terms of prayers made in therein.



4)            The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.



                                                         [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                  ___Page No.3 of 3___
                                     1 October, 2026