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 ar