M/S. ALIJI MONOJI AND CO. versus LALJI MAVJI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 12-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. ALIJI MONOJI AND CO. 
v. 
LAU! MA V.TI AND ORS. 
JULY 12, l 996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure J908: Order J Rule JO. 
Necessaiy or proper party-Impleadment of-Notice by Municipal Car- . 
C poration to appellant for demolition of unauth01ised structures-Suit by 
appellant-Lessee seeking injunction against Municipal Corpora-
tion-Respondent-landlords brought on record under Order J Rule JO on the 
ground that they were having direct interest in property-Order of Tlial Cowt 
upheld by High Cowt-Appeal-Held High Court was light in refusing to 
D inteifere with the order of impleadment passed by T1ial Cowt-Held though 
relief was sought against the Municipal Co1poration but the landlord was 
necessalily a proper party-Jn the event of demolition his 1ight title and interest 
would be directly affected-Where presence of respondent is necessary for 
complete and effectual adjudication of dispute he is a proper party though no 
relief is sought against him. 
E 
Ramesh Hirachand Kundamnal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater 
Bombay & Ors., [1992) 2 SCC 524; New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. 
Kumkum Mittal & Ors., [1994] 1 SCC 402; Bihar State Electlicity Board v. 
State of Bihar & Ors., [1994) Supp. 3 SCC 743; Anil Kr. Singh v. Shivnath 
Mishra, [1995] 3 SCC 147 and Union of India & Anr. v. Distlict Judge, 
F Udhampur & Ors., [1994) 4 sec 737, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9477 of 
1996:. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.93 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 2418 of 1993. 
R.F. Nariman, Arvind Kr. Sharma and P.H. Parekh for the Appel-
]ants. 
H 
V.N. Ganpule and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Respondents. 
542 
ALIJI MONOJI AND CO. v. LAJ.JI MA VJ! 
543 
D.N. Mishra for the Respondent Nos. 7-8. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
The facts are very simple. The appellant-lessee laid the Suit No. 
9460/90 for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Corporation of 
Bombay restraining them from demolishing a portion of the building. The 
Municipal Corporation had issued notice under Section 351 of the 
Municipal Corporation Act for demolition of the above building on the 
ground that the appellant had made unauthorised structures. The contest-
ing respondents 2 to 6 sought to come on record under Order 1 Rule 10, 
CPC contending that they have direct interest in the property and the motion 
taken out by the respondent was ordered by the trial Court and the High Court 
A 
B 
c 
by the impugned order dated February 17, 1993 was upheld the same in W.P. D 
No. 2418 dated July 5, 1993. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the appellants, con-
tended that the contesting respondent have only commercial interest in the 
property but the real question is : whether the appellant had made con-
struction of the building sought to be demolished by the Municipal Car-
E 
poration and, therefore, whether the landlords-respondents are necessary 
or proper party. The High Court has not correctly appreciated the ratio of 
Ramesh Hirachand Kundamnal v. Municipal C01poratio11 of Greater Bom-
bay & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 524. The question therein was : whether the 
contesting respondents were necessary or proper party under Order 1, F 
Rule 10, CPC ? It was held that the party was not a necessary or proper 
party. It would apply to the facts of the case. We.find no force. 
The controversy in no longer res integra. It is settled law by catena of 
decisions of this Court that where the presence of the respondent is 
necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though G 
no relief is sought, he is a proper party. Necessary party is one without 
whose presence no effective and complete adjudication of the dispute 
could be made and no relief granted. The question is : whether the landlord 
is a necessary or proper party to the suit for perpetual injunction against 
the Municipal Corporation for demolition of demised building ? The H 
544 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A landlord has a direct and substantial interest in the demised building before 
the demolition of which notice under Section 351 was issued. In the event 
of its demolition, his rights would materially be affected. His right, title and 
interest in the property demised to the tenant or licences would be in 
jeopardy. It may be that the construction which i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.