Even though the matter comes upon an application, but with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

This petition has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2010, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur in appeal No.16/10, whereby the petitioner's application for impleadment has been rejected.

The facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal and Gyaneshwar Kumar Agarwal respectively were allotted a plot No.A-35 in Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti, Jaipur by the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter 'JDA') under the Provisions of Section 54B of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1982) preceded by an order under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and a lease-deed came to be registered on 20.12.2007 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur in respect of the said plot.

The petitioner-Samiti appears to have filed a complaint before the JDA with regard to the issue of lease deed dated 20.12.2007 to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in respect of plot No.A-35 inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid plot constitutes a part of drain and that in the event the said lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued by the JDA were to stand the entire colony would be put into jeopardy in the event of heavy monsoon and no outlet therefore – the existing drainage having been compromised by the grant of lease-deed over the land which was stated to be part of the drain.

On the complaint by the petitioner-Society or otherwise, the JDA appears to have cancelled the lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 vide its order dated 21.05.2008.

Aggrieved of the order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the JDA, the respondents, Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal and Gyaneshwar Kumar Agarwal filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982. The petitioner-Samiti moved an application before the Appellate Tribunal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to be impleaded as a party primarily on the ground that as the lease-deed issued in favour of respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 20.12.2007 had been cancelled on 21.05.2008 by the JDA on the complaint of the petitioner-Samiti, the petitioner-Samiti was a necessary or in any event a proper party in the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

The JDA Appellate Tribunal having considered the matter came to a conclusion that the issue before it was with regard to the cancellation of lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 by the JDA without as much as an opportunity of hearing to the lessee and in the context of the dispute for its adjudication, the applicant-Samiti was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the appeal. The JDA Appellate Tribunal thus dismissed the petitioner-Samiti's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

The counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has vehemently argued that in the event the lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and cancelled on 21.05.2008 were allowed to subsist and the order of cancellation of lease-deed dated 21.05.2008 were to set aside by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal before it, the residential colony adjoining the said plot No.A-35 would be put to imminent threat of massive flood and damages in the event of a downpour or excessive rain during a good monsoon as it is the contention of the petitioner-Samiti that the said plot No.A-35 is carved out of a major drain through which storm water during the monsoon flows. It is submitted that in these circumstances, in the background facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner's application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr. [(2005) 11 SCC 403] to contend that under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a person may be added as a party to a suit eithe