1. Heard learned appellant-party-in-person Smt. P. Praveena Kumari, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Bathe Gowda for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned advocate Mr. K.N. Shivareddy for respondent No.4.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge on Interim Application No.2 of 2024 which was an application for impleadment filed by the appellant herein. It was filed in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.2993 of 2024.

3. The original petitioner had filed the petition challenging the order of the respondent-the Chief Commissioner dated 12.01.2024 passed in Appeal No.70 of 2023 under Section 253 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020. From the facts, it appears that the petitioner has constructed a building of multiresidential units on the land.

3.1 The applicant, who seeks to implead herself, had filed a complaint alleging that there are deviations in the sanctioned plan. The complaint proceedings culminated into the aforesaid appeal.

3.2 It further transpires that the petitioner is the landlord whereas, the impleading applicant is a tenant. The petitionerlandlord has initiated eviction proceedings. The applicant does not dispute that she is a tenant.

4. The contention of the petitioner-landlord is that she cannot assert any interest in the property and has no interest in the subject matter of appeal which is between the petitioner and the authorities of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) whereas, according to the applicant, she is affected by the construction and wants to initiate separate proceedings. It is the case that she is in possession of certain documents which show that the construction is contrary to the sanctioned plan.

5. As noted earlier, the applicant is only a tenant. The dispute in the writ petition is challenge to the order in appeal under Section 253 of the Act of 2020. It is essentially a dispute between the petitioner and the authorities. Looking to the status of the impleading applicant vis-à-vis the landlord and vis-à-vis the property, it cannot be said that the applicant is a necessary or even a proper party.

5.1 The decision of this court in Major K.A. Mathew (Retd.) Vs. S. Ramesh and others [2016 (1) AKR 409] supports the aforesaid view. It was the case of impleadment of the party in the appeal which was preferred by the private party against the order passed by the BBMP for demolition of a portion of the building on the ground that the building was contrary to the sanctioned plan. It was stated by the court that the lis was between the private party and the BBMP only. The petitioner, though he was the original complainant, was held by the court not to be necessary party. Mere apprehension on part of the party that the BBMP would not place all facts before the court, could not be a ground to implead the party.

6. Thus, the subject matter of appeal before learned Single Judge is a challenge to the order passed by the competent authority under Section 253 of the Act of 2020. It cannot be said that the applicant, in capacity of a tenant of a unit in the property, is an interested party in any manner to permit her to be impleaded. As stated above, the lis lies between the petitioner and the BBMP.

6.1 The order passed by learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer and dismissing the interim application is legal and proper. No interference is called for.

7. The appeal is dismissed as meritless.

In view of dismissal of the appeal, the interlocutory applications will not survive. They are accordingly disposed of.