The owner of a property with regard to which an injunction suit is filed could be impleaded as the proper party upon the application of such owner, notwithstanding the fact that the suit was for injunction against the Municipal Corporation.

Headnote:
JOINDER OF PARTIES - BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1888 - SECTIONS 351, 488 - ORDER 1, RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - LANDLADY'S RIGHT TO BE IMPLEADED AS A PROPER PARTY IN A SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a tenant, filed a suit for injunction against the Bombay Municipal Corporation challenging notices issued under sections 351 and 488 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, alleging unauthorized construction on the leased premises. The landlady, the owner of the property, sought to be joined as a proper party, claiming interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the landlady had a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and that her presence was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. The court allowed the landlady's application for joinder as a proper party.
Issues: Whether the landlady, as the owner of the property, had a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation and whether her presence was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the court to add parties to a suit or proceedings, and held that the landlady's presence was appropriate in view of the subject matter in adjudication. The court also considered the impact of the notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, which touched the property of the landlady, and held that she had a clear entitlement to be impleaded as a proper party.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the landlady's application for joinder and allowed the Chamber Summons for joinder, directing that the landlady be arraigned as defendant No. 4 in the suit.

JUDGMENT - B.A. MASODKAR, J.:---This civil revision application questions the order made on December 13, 1983, rejecting the application of the revision-applicant for joinder as the defendant in the suit, being Long Cause Suit No. 6881 of 1982. By that order, the revision-applicant's Chamber Summons in that regard has been dismissed.

2. The admitted positions are that the suit is filed claiming relief of injunction against the Bombay Municipal Corporation. That Corporation issues notices under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") followed by section 488 of the Act with regard to a shed said to have been put up at the rear side of the building in occupation of the plaintiff, situate at Princess Street in Bombay. The said premises are held by the plaintiff as lessee. The property belongs to the revision-applicant, she having purchased the same in the year 1944. Thus, the revision applicant is the landlady while the plaintiff is the tenant. As the notices were issued under the provisions of the Act and were addressed to the tenant, the suit was filed. By the Chamber Summons taken out, the landlady sought joinder as the defendant on the basis that she has every interest in the suit and further that she should be arraigned as a proper party.

3. By the impugned order, the Court below held otherwise.

4. In this Court, the revision-applicant claimed that there was ample power in the Court to permit such a joinder, particularly when the property vested in her by reason of the title. It is contended that such a person should have the opportunity of being arraigned as a proper party in the suit itself. Otherwise, she will not be in a position to protect her interest. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing for the original plaintiff submitted that such joinder cannot be directed, for the presence of the landlady was neither necessary nor expedient to such an injunction suit. In the submission of the learned Counsel, the character of the suit is simple one and the cause of action arises exclusively between the plaintiff and the Corporation. That cause of action arose because of the notices issued by the Corporation and not by any act of the landlady. The presence of the landlady in such an action would convert the suit itself into a title suit.

5. Now, as far as the power of the Court to direct joinder of parties is concerned, Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code is an ample answer. That does enable the Court to direct joinder of the parties. See (Virbhadrappa Shilvani v. Shakabai)1, 41 Bom.L.R. 249. Such a joinder ordinarily against the Will of the plaintiff, is not ordered, but if necessary in the interest of justice, the same can nonetheless be directed. This course has been indicated by the earlier judgments of the learned Single Judges of this Court rendered in (Civil Revision Application No. 938 of 1964, decided on June 30, 1966 by Chandrachud, J.)2, and in (Appeal No. 587 of 1981, decided on November 25, 1983 by (Rege, J.))3. In both these decisions, the matters were concerning the relief of injunction against the Municipal Corporation. To the same effect is a judgment of this Court of another learned Single Judge in (Civil Revision Application No. 901 of 1968, decided on January 17, 1969 by Vaidya, J.)4. These decisions indicate that owner of a property with regard to which an injunction suit of such a kind is filed could be impleaded as the proper party upon the application of such owner, notwithstanding the fact that the suit was for injunction against the Municipal Corporation.

6. The ratio of these decisions is not in any manner in conflict with decision of the Division Bench in Virbhadrappa Shilvani v. Shekabai 41 Bom.L.R. 249 (supra). Even there, the Division Bench observed that the powers of the Court under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code were wide enough to add parties to a suit or proceedings. However, that power will not be exercised merely because a person claims

Click Here to Read the rest of this document