Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 CS no. 599-18 in L.C.SUIT no.465-18
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 599 OF 2018
(CNR no. MHCC010040902018)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 465 OF 2018
(CNR no. MHCC010023432018)
Mr. Mani Anthony Nadar ]
Age 50 years, ]
carrying on business at Structure/Shop No.9, ]
under the name and title "Time Center" ]
situated at Opp. Ashish Cinema, Maroli Church, ]
R.C. Marg, Chembur (East), Mumbai 400 074. ]....Plaintiff
V/s
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ]
having their Head Office at ]
Mahapalika Building, Mahapalika Marg, ]
Mumbai 400001. Through the Assistant Municipal ]
Commissioner, 'M/West' Ward office ]....Defendant
And
Smt. Tunga Krishna Devadiga ]....Applicant
Appearances:
Ld. Advocate Mr. Chaurasia for the Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Mr. S. C. Khandagale for defendant/MCGM.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI C.V. MARATHE
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 10th December, 2019
-- 1 of 5 --
2 CS no. 599-18 in L.C.SUIT no.465-18
O R A L O R D E R
1. By instant Chamber Summons the applicant has prayed to join
her as defendant, being landlord of the suit premises. The plaintiff has
objected this claim contending that the applicant has not proved her
relation with the landlord Krishna Annappa. Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiff has argued that the instant suit is against the Local Authority
i.e. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter "MCGM")
claiming relief that the notice issued by the latter under Section 351 of
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter "MMC Act") is
illegal and therefore, no prayer is made against the applicant and latter
has no role in the adjudication of the above issue.
2. The applicant has tendered property card of suit plot of land
which shows that her name along with two sons was entered therein
after the death of her husband Krishna Annappa Devadiga in 1999. The
plaintiff has not denied this document nor produced any evidence to
show that the mutation done in 1999 was challenged for want of
relation of the applicant with deceased Krishna Annappa. Therefore,
above revenue record strengthens the claim of applicant that she is the
landlord of the suit plot of land after demise of her husband. Being a
landlord she has interest in the subject matter of the suit and she is a
-- 2 of 5 --
3 CS no. 599-18 in L.C.SUIT no.465-18
better person throw adequate light on the controversy about
authorization of the suit premises.
3. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. [2017(6) ALL MR 420
(S.C.)] wherein it is held that necessary party is the one without whose
presence neither the suit can proceed nor the relief can be granted and
only then such person can allowed to become party. After perusal of the
facts of the said case, it is clear that in a suit against local authority, the
respondents no. 2 and 3 therein prayed to add them as parties claiming
interest in the suit house as owners under the Agreement for Sale which
was subject matter of Civil Suit No.424 of 2008 for seeking specific
performance of the said agreement. This factual matrix makes it clear
that the Court was not called upon to adjudicate the rights between the
appellant and respondents no. 2 and 3 therein in relation to the suit
house and such dispute could have been decided in the separate suit. In
this set of facts, the above principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. In this case, there is prima facie evidence to establish that the
applicant is landlord of the suit premises and as such she is entitled to
be joined as defendant. Hence, following order :
-- 3 of 5 --
4 CS no. 599-18 in L.C.SUIT no.465-18
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.599 of 2018 is allowed and made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
2. The plaint be amended accordingly and Writ of Summons be
served to the newly added defendant on or before next date.
(C. V. Marathe)
Judge,
Date : 10.12.2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 10.12.2019
Transcribed on : 10.12.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 12.12.2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5 CS no. 599-18 in L.C.SUIT no.465-18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 12.12.2019 at 4.42 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Gayatri P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. C. V. Marathe
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
10/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
12/12/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
12/12/2019
-- 5 of 5 --