Fathima Beevi, J. - (1.) We have to consider in this appeal the question whether the second respondent is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant under O. 1, R. l0 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the suit instituted by the appellant against the first respondent.
(2.) Under the Dealership Agreement of 1974, the appellant is in possession of the service station erected on the land held by the second respondent herein, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as lessee. The service station consisted of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking of vehicles. The first respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued notice dated 5-8-1988 under S. 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act to the appellant for demolition of two chatties on the terrace on the ground that these were unauthorised constructions. The appellant instituted the suit No. 6181 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, challenging the validity of the notice and for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structures. Interim injunction was granted by the Court.
(3.) On 9-9-1988, the second respondent applied for being impleaded as additional defendant in the suit on the ground that they have materials to show that the constructions are unauthorised, and they are necessary parties to the litigation. The Court by order dated 22-8-1989 directed the appellant to add the second respondent as defendant and amend the plaint suitably rejecting the contentions of the appellant that the second respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party to be impleaded in the suit. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4229 of 1989 under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay challenging the correctness of the order. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13-10-1989.;