Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception of the order dated 922012 passed by the Learned Judge of City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, by which order, the Application being Chamber Summons No.123 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner for impleadment, came to be rejected. 3. The facts in brief necessary to be cited for adjudication of the above Petition can be stated thus: The suit in question being S.C.Suit (L)No.273 of 2012 has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein challenging the notice issued under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 (for sake of convenience referred to as the said Act). The said notice has been issued as the Respondents are not vacating the suit site wherein the redevelopment project is to be implemented by the Petitioner herein. 4. The said provision i.e. Section 95A can be invoked in a case where there is a redevelopment project which to be undertaken and the consequence of which is that it is binding on the occupants to vacate the premises. It is on refusal of any occupant to vacate the premises on being approached by the holder of the no objection certificate from the Board that the powers under the said provision can be invoked. The said Section 95A therefore presupposes the approval of the redevelopment project and its consequential implementation. 5. The Petitioner herein filed an application for impleadment in the said suit which as indicated above has been filed challenging Section 95A notice issued to the Respondent Nos.1 to 7. The Application of the Petitioner was founded on the conveyance which the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein have executed in favour of the Petitioner thereby conveying the entire survey No.2/901 admeasuring 1612.88 sq.mts. by the registered conveyance dated 2992006. The Petitioner has also founded its case on the no objection certificate issued by the MHADA under the Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulation 1991, which is dated 1062009. by the registered conveyance dated 2992006. The Petitioner has also founded its case on the no objection certificate issued by the MHADA under the Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulation 1991, which is dated 1062009. It was the case of the Petitioner that in view of the conveyance in its favour as well as the no objection certificate granted for redevelopment of the property in question, that in a suit filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 challenging the notice issued under Section 95A, it is a necessary party. 6. The said Application filed by the Petitioner i.e. Chamber Summons No.123 of 2012 came to be opposed on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein. The opposition was on the ground that the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein continued to be the owners of the three shops totally admeasuring 1971 sq.ft., notwithstanding the conveyance executed in favour of the Petitioner. The objection was also on the ground that Section 95A of the said Act is not attracted at all, since the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are not a part of the redevelopment project which is undertaken on the site in question. 7. The said Chamber Summons was heard by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, who by the impugned order has rejected the same principally on the ground that since the notices under Section 95A have been challenged by the Plaintiffs i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein, the lis is only between the MHADA and the Plaintiffs and therefore the Petitioner herein is neither a necessary or proper party in the said suit. As indicated above, it is the said order which is impugned in the present Petition. 8. On behalf of the Petitioner, the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakkar would reiterate the case of the Petitioner in the Trial Court that since the Petitioner is a NOC holder from MHADA under which redevelopment of the property is to take place and since the notice can be said to be only infurtherance of implementing the said redevelopment project, the Petitioner is necessary party to the suit. Thakkar would reiterate the case of the Petitioner in the Trial Court that since the Petitioner is a NOC holder from MHADA under which redevelopment of the property is to take place and since the notice can be said to be only infurtherance of implementing the said redevelopment project, the Petitioner is necessary party to the suit. The Learned Senior Counsel in so far as the locus of the Petitioner is concerned, would seek to rely upon certain clauses of the conveyance dated 2992006 to contend under the said conveyance the structures of the Respondent Nos.1 to 7, are to be part of the redevelopment project and the said structure is to be demolished and the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 have to be allotted equivalent area in the reconstructed building. A reference to the relevant clauses of the conveyance deed would be made a bit later. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore contend that interest of the Petitioner can exfacie be seen from the aforesaid facts. The Learned Senior Counsel referred to the letter addressed by the Advocate of the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 to the Petitioner wherein the Advocate has accepted the fact that the said three shops were part of the redevelopment project and the dispute sought to be raised by the Advocate was only as regards the location at which the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 were to be given the said area 1971 sq.ft. 9. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 that though the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 have conveyed the property in question they continued to be the owners of the three shops and are therefore not part of the redevelopment project and the issuance of the notice under Section 95A to the said Respondent Nos.1 to 7 is totally unjustified and unwarranted. The Learned Counsel would rely upon the Second schedule to the conveyance to contend that the three shops admeasuring 1971 sq.ft. are treated separately than rest of the property. 10. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. The issue as indicated above in the present Petition which arises is as to whether the Petitioner herein is a necessary party to the suit in question. are treated separately than rest of the property. 10. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. The issue as indicated above in the present Petition which arises is as to whether the Petitioner herein is a necessary party to the suit in question. The suit as mentioned herein above has been filed challenged notice issued under Section 95A of the said Act. It would therefore be apposite to reproduce the relevant excerpt of the said provision, which is reproduced herein under for convenience sake. “95A Summary eviction of occupiers in certain cases. (1) Where the owner of a building or the members of the proposed cooperative housing society of the occupiers of the said building, submits a proposal to the Board for reconstruction of the building, after obtaining the written consent of not less than 70 per cent of the total occupiers of that building and a No Objection Certificate for such reconstruction of the building of that building is issued by the Board to the owner or to the proposed cooperative housing society of the occupier, as the case may be, then it shall be binding on all the occupiers to vacate the premises: Provided that …................................. (2) On refusal by any of the occupant to vacate the premises as provided in subsection (1), on being approached by the holder of such No Objection Certificate for eviction of such occupiers, it would be competent for the Board, notwithstanding anything contained in chapters VI and VII of this Act, to effect summary eviction of such occupiers. From a reading of the said provision, it can therefore be seen that the said provision is a special provision which appears in Chapter VIII of the said Act, which is applicable and can invoked only in case where a redevelopment project is to be implemented. The object behind the said provision appears to be that the said power is to be exercised qua the occupants / tenants who are not cooperating in the process of redevelopment. The rationale appears to be that the 70% of the consenting tenants should not be prejudiced in any manner after having given their consent. 11. In the instant case, it is an undisputed position that the Petitioner has a no objection certificate from the Board. The rationale appears to be that the 70% of the consenting tenants should not be prejudiced in any manner after having given their consent. 11. In the instant case, it is an undisputed position that the Petitioner has a no objection certificate from the Board. Reading of the said no objection certificate discloses that it is in respect of the Murgiwala Chawl Nos.1 and 2 which are situated on the said property being survey No.2/901, though strictosenso the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are not part of the said two chawls, the shops in question occupied by them are undoubtedly part of the property bearing survey No.2/901, which has been conveyed by them to the Petitioner. It is in the said context that the contents of the said conveyance dated 2992006 are required to be seen. Clauses I, J, K are reproduced herein under: (I) It is agreed that besides the cash consideration amount of Rs.1,21,00,000/(Rupees One Crore and Twenty One Lakhs only) payable by the Purchasers to the Vendors in terms thereof in pursuance of the aforesaid three shops as occupied by the Vendors, the purchasers have agreed to construct free of cost equivalent area in the new building as per plan to be passed for the said property and that the actual area of 1971 sq.ft. carpet area covering the said three shops will not form the part of the conveyance but however the purchasers shall be entitled to utilize the entire FSI available on the said property minus the said area of the said three shops which shall remain the ownership of the vendors only and that the assessment of the said three shops shall be done independently. (j) That the said three shops shall not be conveyed to the society or other body of purchasers as and when formed and that the Purchasers at all time will remain as on today as the full and absolute owners of the said three shops with right to sell or deal with the dispose of the same in any manner they may deem fit and proper and the Vendors shall not be required to become the members of the society or body of pruchasers to be formed. The purchasers shall have nothing to do with the said three shops although the said three shops may be reconstructed as part of the new building structure for the exclusive use occupation and possession of the Vendors and/or their nominee. (k) The Purchasers have agreed that as far as possible they shall endeavour to reconstruct the said existing three shops to be provided to the Owners at the same place and that the area of the said three shops shall be equivalent to the area which the vendors currently are in possession of. Before submitting the plan the position of the three shops to be constructed shall be shown to the owners for their approval. That the owners shall not be required to vacate from their existing shops till the new shop premises are constructed for them and the tentative positions / location of the said three new shops is shown on the plan Annexure “C” hereto. All the cost of construction including expenses for sanction of the plan for the said three shops shall be borne and paid by the purchasers only. The relevant of the operative portion of the said conveyance is reproduced herein under: “Now THIS INDENTURE FURTHER WITNESSETH that in further consideration of the Conveyance of the said premises as aforesaid, the Purchasers shall demolish and construct for the Vendors the said three shops as per specifications set out in annexure “D” hereto without charging any construction costs or fees and the said three shops will be the vendors ownership premises, continuing to vest absolutely with the Vendors for which the assessment will be done independently and in respect whereof it will not be obligatory for the Vendors to join the society or other body of purchasers.” (emphasis supplied) 12. It is an undisputed position that by the said conveyance the entire Survey No.2/901 has been conveyed to the Petitioner. A reading of the operative clause and clauses I, J and K above therefore disclose that the structure of the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are to be demolished and the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are to be allotted an equivalent area in the reconstructed building. Hence, therefore by virtue of the conveyance though the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are not part of the Murgiwala Chawl they would undoubtedly be part of the redevelopment project which is being implemented in respect of the property being Survey No.2/901. Hence, therefore by virtue of the conveyance though the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are not part of the Murgiwala Chawl they would undoubtedly be part of the redevelopment project which is being implemented in respect of the property being Survey No.2/901. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 that the said Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are not part of the redevelopment project therefore does not stand to scrutiny. The Petitioner undoubtedly in the conspectus of the aforesaid facts can be said to be a party who has interest in the subject matter of the suit as ultimately if any order is passed in the suit the same would directly affect the Petitioner as the NOC holder. As an NOC holder the Petitioner has to fulfill its commitment to the tenants who have consented to the redevelopment project. Though the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 sought to make submissions as regards the entitlement of the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 under the said conveyance as also as regards the merits and the legality and validity of the notice issued to the Respondent Nos.1 to 7, in my view, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the said aspect at this stage. At this stage this Court is only concerned with the case of the petitioner for impleadment. The Trial Court as can be seen has considered the case for impleadment of the Petitioner only from the aspect of the challenge raised in the suit, namely Section 95A notice issued by the Board, and has therefore come to an erroneous conclusion that the Petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The impugned order is therefore required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly the Chamber Summons No.123 of 2012 would stand allowed. The Respondent Nos.1 to 7 i.e. original Plaintiffs are directed to carry out the amendment in the plaint as per the directions that would be issued by the Trial Court, on a copy of this Order being produced before it. 12. Needless to say that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudicating the case of the Petitioner for impleadment and should not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case of the Plaintiffs in the suit. 13. 12. Needless to say that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudicating the case of the Petitioner for impleadment and should not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case of the Plaintiffs in the suit. 13. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.