ORDER :

Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Interim Application, the Applicants seek to implead M/s. BS Lifespace as Respondent to the present Petition.

2) Mr. Deepak Thakare, learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that, the Petitioners who are tenants of building known as Kamla Bhuvan is built on a plot of land bearing No.1 of private scheme forming part of Survey No.31, Hissa No.2 (part) and other being a portion of Survey No.161, Hissa No.6 (part) situated at L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar West, village Kirol, Taluka Salsette Bombay Suburban District bearing CTS No.2252 to 2254 admeasuring 1498 sq. yards equivalent to 1250.014 sq. mtrs (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kamla Bhuvan’) have filed the present Petition seeking direction against the Respondents to comply with the provisions of Regulation 33(7)(A) of DCPR-2034 for reconstruction/development of the suit.

2.1) He submits that, the tenants are concerned about the prolonged delay in the redevelopment of Kamla Bhuvan. They further apprehend that, the landlords namely Respondents Nos.3 to 5 will not provide them Permanent Alternate Accommodation (“PAA”) and renege on their obligations. He submits that, the landlords had introduced the proposed Respondent, a new developer namely M/s. BS Lifespace represented by Mr. Bharat Shetty. The Developer had actively participated in various redevelopment activities including obtaining of IOD, Fire NOC, execution of plans, coordination with tenants and also initiated groundwork for the project. According to him, various meetings were held between the landlords and the new developers. Apart from the inauguration ceremony held by these new developers, the landlords and 62 tenants (which included the Petitioners) executed Consent-cum-Declarations in favour of the new developers thereby permitting them to construct a commercial building. Thereafter, there were settlement discussions with the new developers for over a period of 4 to 5 months. The matter pending in Court has been listed under the caption “for settlement” on several occasions since February 2025. It is submitted that, during the course of settlement discussions between the landlords and the new developers, an extension of time was granted to the new developers as a gesture of support and cooperation towards the redevelopment of Kamla Bhuvan. This was done to ensure the financial and operational viability of the project.

2.2) He further submitted that, in this manner the new developer has been substantially involved in the process of redevelopment. It is a case of the Petitioners that, the landlords have failed to maintain transparent communication with the Petitioners and have failed to give an assurance of the timeframe within which the PAA Agreements would be executed. In these circumstances, it is submitted that M/s. BS Lifespace would be a proper and necessary party as the proposed Respondent to the present proceedings.

3) Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the landlords namely Respondent Nos.3 to 5, opposed the Application. He submits that presently there is no contract executed with the new developer. The original developers, Respondents 6 to 9, continue with the project. He submitted that by adding the new developer as a party Respondent, the disputes will only be aggravated rather than resolved.

3.1) He submitted that, the present Application was nothing else but a ruse to pressurize the landlords to enter into terms with the new developer. The proposed Respondent has no privity of contract with the landlord and cannot have a contract directly with the Petitioners i.e. tenants. The contract, if any, with the original developer Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 also cannot be a ground to add them as Respondents herein. The Petitioner - tenants cannot use the Court as a tool to indirectly pressurize the landlords in this manner.

4) We have heard both sides and also perused the record.

4.1) In our view, the Petitioners have no right to implead as a party who has no privity of contract with the la