Kamal Khata, J.

1) By this Interim Application, the Applicants seek to implead M/s. BS Lifespace as Respondent to the present Petition.

2) Mr. Deepak Thakare, learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that, the Petitioners who are tenants of building known as Kamla Bhuvan is built on a plot of land bearing No.1 of private scheme forming part of Survey No.31, Hissa No.2 (part) and other being a portion of Survey No.161, Hissa No.6 (part) situated at L.B.S. Marg, Ghatkopar West, village Kirol, Taluka Salsette Bombay Suburban District bearing CTS No.2252 to 2254 admeasuring 1498 sq. yards equivalent to 1250.014 sq. mtrs (hereinafter referred to as ‘Kamla Bhuvan’) have filed the present Petition seeking direction against the Respondents to comply with the provisions of Regulation 33(7)(A) of DCPR-2034 for reconstruction/development of the suit.

                   2.1) He submits that, the tenants are concerned about the prolonged delay in the redevelopment of Kamla Bhuvan. They further apprehend that, the landlords namely Respondents Nos.3 to 5 will not provide them Permanent Alternate Accommodation (“PAA”) and renege on their obligations. He submits that, the landlords had introduced the proposed Respondent, a new developer namely M/s. BS Lifespace represented by Mr. Bharat Shetty. The Developer had actively participated in various redevelopment activities including obtaining of IOD, Fire NOC, execution of plans, coordination with tenants and also initiated groundwork for the project. According to him, various meetings were held between the landlords and the new developers. Apart from the inauguration ceremony held by these new developers, the landlords and 62 tenants (which included the Petitioners) executed Consent-cum-Declarations in favour of the new developers thereby permitting them to construct a commercial building. Thereafter, there were settlement discussions with the new developers for over a period of 4 to 5 months. The matter pending in Court has been listed under the caption “for settlement” on several occasions since February 2025. It is submitted that, during the course of settlement discussions between the landlords and the new developers, an extension of time was granted to the new developers as a gesture of support and cooperation towards the redevelopment of Kamla Bhuvan. This was done to ensure the financial and operational viability of the project.

                   2.2) He further submitted that, in this manner the new developer has been substantially involved in the process of redevelopment. It is a case of the Petitioners that, the landlords have failed to maintain transparent communication with the Petitioners and have failed to give an assurance of the timeframe within which the PAA Agreements would be executed. In these circumstances, it is submitted that M/s. BS Lifespace would be a proper and necessary party as the proposed Respondent to the present proceedings.

3) Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Advocate for the landlords namely Respondent Nos.3 to 5, opposed the Application. He submits that presently there is no contract executed with the new developer. The original developers, Respondents 6 to 9, continue with the project. He submitted that by adding the new developer as a party Respondent, the disputes will only be aggravated rather than resolved.

                   3.1) He submitted that, the present Application was nothing else but a ruse to pressurize the landlords to enter into terms with the new developer. The proposed Respondent has no privity of contract with the landlord and cannot have a contract directly with the Petitioners i.e. tenants. The contract, if any, with the original developer Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 also cannot be a ground to add them as Respondents herein. The Petitioner - tenants cannot use the Court as a tool to indirectly pressurize the landlords in this manner.

4) We have heard both sides and also perused the record.

                   4.1) In our view, the Petitioners have no right to implead as a party who has no privity of contract with the landlords in the present Petition. It would only enlarge the issue and complicate it.

                   4.2) It is settled law that, the tenants’ rights are protected. In Chandralok People Welfare Association vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2300 and Anandrao G. Pawar vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2534, this Court has elucidated the rights of the tenants.

5) In this background, we posed a query to the Petitioners’ Advocate, whether there was any binding contract between M/s. BS Lifespace and the existing landlords-Respondent Nos.3 to 5. Since the response was in the negative, we pointed out that, the present Application would be a sheer abuse of process of law and nothing else but an elite form of coercion and extortion.

6) According to us, the present Application is nothing else but a back-door entry attempted by the proposed Respondent, through a seemingly innocuous application of being joined as a necessary party to the present Petition.

                   6.1) Despite offering them to consider withdrawing their Application, the Applicants insisted that the Court decide the Interim Application.

7) In these circumstances, we are compelled to draw an inference and record our observation that this Application is nothing short of a pressure tactic employed by the proposed Respondent in the guise of an application by the Petitioners (tenants) to compel the landlords to acknowledge the rights of the proposed Respondent though they have no enforceable Agreement either with the landlord or with the original Developers Respondents 6 to 9.

                   7.1) It is settled law that the Courts are not meant to be tools in the hands of unscrupulous litigants to coerce or pressurize a party in any manner or form. It prima facie appears that the present Application is moved and financed by the proposed Respondent to crystalize his unenforceable right against the Respondents 3 to 5 and Respondent 6 to 9. Such attempts to abuse the process of the Court cannot be countenanced. We therefore disallow the present Application.

                   7.2) Assuming that M/s. BS Lifespace has some contractual obligations with the earlier developer, they have rights to sue them independently.

8) We accordingly dismiss the Application with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order on the official website of High Court, Bombay.

                   8.1) Details of the bank Account for payment of cost are as under:-