IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1345 OF 2012 IN SUIT NO.2456 OF 2012

Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sanjay Jain i/by L.D.Shah and Co., for Plaintiffs. Mr. Vaibhav Mehta a/w Mr. Jiten Shukla and Deepti Mistry i/by Vaibhav Mehta and Associates, for Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Mr. K.V. Thorat i/by M/s. Chitnis and Co., for Defendant No.3. Mr. M.K. Tanna a/w Mr. Pawankumar i/by M/s. P.M.Shah, for Applicants.

CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.

DATE: 30th NOVEMBER 2012

P.C. :

1. By the present Suit, the Plaintiff Developer has sought a mandatory order and injunction directing Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their family members, to comply with the agreement dated 29122007 and handover quite, vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit premises for the purpose of redevelopment in accordance with the agreement dated 29 122007. The Society admittedly has 20 members. The Society has decided to go in for redevelopment of its property and has entered into an agreement with the said developer in this regard. 19 of the 20 members have already vacated their respective tenements since May 2012 and are waiting for the redevelopment to commence. However, the occupants of one of the tenements have been adamant and are refusing to vacate the premises under their use and occupation.

2. The Notice of Motion taken out by the developer is taken up for final hearing. At this stage, the lessor of the land on which the Suit property is situated, has taken out the above Chamber Summons for being joined as party Defendant to the Suit. The Society has earlier filed a Suit before the City Civil Court, inter alia against the lessors restraining them from interfering with the process of redevelopment. The said Notice of Motion was allowed by an order dated 7th July, 2012 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay. An appeal was preferred from the said order by the lessor, wherein though the order passed by the City Civil Court was modified to some extent, the order restraining the lessor from interfering with the redevelopment process was confirmed.

3. In view thereof and even otherwise, since the lessors of the Suit lands are neither necessary, nor proper parties to the Suit, the question of them being joined as party Defendants to the Suit does not arise. It is obvious that the lessors have taken out the above Chamber

Summons with the intention to delay the hearing of the Notice of Motion taken out by the Plaintiff developer seeking vacant possession of one of the twenty tenements from Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The Chamber Summons is accordingly dismissed.

4. The learned Advocate for the Applicants prays for stay of the order. Application for stay of the order is rejected.

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )