R.M. SAVANT, J.

1. At the outset, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks deletion of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to the above Petition as in the context of the challenge raised in the above Petition, they are only formal parties. The said Respondents are accordingly deleted at the risk of the Petitioner.

2. Rule, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

3. The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 26th February, 2014 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order the Chamber Summons filed by the Petitioner being Chamber Summons No.2705/2013 came to be rejected.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be read thus:

The Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff in the suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.4298/2013. The said suit is filed challenging the notice issued under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 for short the said Act. In the context of the present Petition, it is required to be noted that in the plaint in paragraphs 5, 16 and 17 allegations have been made against the Petitioner i.e. the Applicant and the substance of the allegations is that the notice under section 351 has been issued at the instigation of the landlord i.e. the Petitioner. It is required to be noted that in paragraph 5 the factum of the suit filed by the landlord in the Small Causes Court at Bombay has been mentioned. It is also alleged against the Petitioner that the Plaintiff was informed in no uncertain terms that if it did not vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the landlord, then, the Defendant No.1 Corporation would be used to harass and prosecute the Plaintiff. It is alleged, that thereby attempt is made to get the Plaintiff to succumb to the diktats and demands of the landlord. In the notice under section 351 which is the subject matter of the suit a mention is made therein of the complaints made by the landlord. It appears that a Caveat was filed by the landlord in the City Civil Court pursuant to which it was heard at the time of consideration of the application for adinterim relief moved by the Plaintiff in the present suit. However, the Trial Court has postponed the consideration of the issue of jurisdiction as also the application for impleadment of the landlord in the suit to a future date and directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the notice issued under section 351. It is thereafter that the instant Chamber Summons No.2705/2013 came to be moved on 20th November, 2013 which was a day prior to the adinterim relief being granted in favour of the Plaintiff. In the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, the reason why the Petitioner/Applicant i.e. the landlord should be impleaded in the suit in question was set out. The fact that the Applicant had become the owner/landlord of the building in question, which it has purchased from the erstwhile owner Mr. Nathuram Ramnarayan Pvt. Ltd. was mentioned. It is also mentioned that the letter of attornment to the tenants was issued as also the factum of R.A.E. Suit bearing No.1040/1686 of 2012 being filed was mentioned. The impleadment was sought on the ground that the notice under section 351 has been issued pursuant to the complaints which were made by the Applicant/ landlord. The factum of the issuance of the notice under section 488 of the said Act was also mentioned in the affidavit in support of the said chamber summons. It was lastly mentioned that the order passed in respect of the suit premises would have a direct effect on the rights of the Applicant as the Applicant would be bound by the orders passed by the City Civil Court and, therefore, it was imperative that the Applicant be given an opportunity of hearing in the matter.

5. The said Chamber Summons was opposed to on behalf of the Plaintiff by filing an affidavit in reply. The said reply contains identical av