Judgement

JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. The facts are very simple. The appellant lessee laid the Suit No. 9460/90, for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Bombay restraining them from demolishing a portion of the building. The Municipal Corporation had issued notice under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act for demolition of the above building on the ground that the appellant had made unauthorised structures. The contesting respondents 2 to 6 sought to come on record under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. contending that they have direct interest in the property and the motion taken out by the respondent was ordered by the trial Court and the High Court by the impugned order dated February 17, 1993, was upheld the same in W. P. No. 2418 dated July 5, 1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri R. F. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that the respondents have only commercial interest in the property but the real question is whether appellant had made construction of the building sought to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation and, therefore, whether the landlords-respondents are necessary or proper party. The High Court has not correctly appreciated the ratio of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524: (1992 AIR SCW 946). The question therein was : whether the contesting respondents were necessary or proper party under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C.? It was held that the party was not a necessary or proper party. It would apply to the facts of the case. We find no force.

5. The controversy is no longer res integra. It is settled law by catena of decisions of this Court that where the presence of the respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no relief is sought, he is a proper party. Necessary party, is one without whose presence no effective and complete adjudication of the dispute could be made and no relief granted. The, question is : whether the landlord is a necessary or proper party to the suit for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation for demolition of demised building?. The landlord has a direct and substantial interest in the demised building before the demolition of which notice under Section 351 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. It may be that the construction which is sought to be demolished by the Municipal Corporation was made with or without the consent of the landlord or the lessor. But the demolition would undoubtedly materially affect the right, title and interest in the property of the landlord. Under those circumstances, the landlord necessarily is a proper party, though the relief is sought for against the Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolition of the building. Under those circumstances, the question of the commercial interest would not arise. In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmals case, (1992 AIR SCW 946) (supra), this Court had pointed out in para 18 of the judgment that the notice did not relate to the structure but to two chattels. Original lessee from the landlord had no direct interest in that property. Under these circumstances, it was held that the second respondent has no direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and the addition thereof would result in causing serious prejudice to the appellant and the substitution or the addition of a new cause of action would only widen the issue which was required to be adjudicated and settled. It is true, as pointed out by Shri Nariman that in para 14, this Court in that case had pointed out that what makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevent evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only m