the notice issued by Municipal Corporation shows that respondent No.1, is carrying out new construction after demolishing old construction. Hence, it has to be seen whether the said construction is by way of making encroachment on the property of the owner i.e. petitioner or otherwise. Hence, if ultimately respondent No.1 succeeds in this suit, and the the notice issued by Municipal Corporation is held to be illegal and the construction of respondent No.1 is held to be legal, the interests of the petitioner are going to be directly and substantially affected being landlord of the suit premises. 21] As regards the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1, in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal -vsMunicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and ors (supra), wherein the third party, who has sought impleadment in the suit, was not the owner or landlord or in any way concerned with the said property. He was only a person at whose instance the notice was issued by Municipal Corporation, hence it was held that his impleadment is not necessary and it will unnecessarily expand the scope of the suit. 22] Similarly in the decision of this Court in Chouhan Builders India Housing Dvelopment Pvt. Ltd -vs- BMC and anr (supra), the third party was not having any interest or ownership rights in the suit property, but only at his instance, Respondent Corporation has taken action and therefore, his impleadment was not found necessary,
