Short Note : 1. The non-applicants 1 to 7 filed a suit for eviction of the non-applicant No.8 from the suit accommodation on certain grounds available under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act. The non-applicant No.8 pleaded that he was a tenant of a firm "Ratanchand Deepchand" and the suit was bad for having been filed by the non-applicants 1 to 7 as landlord owners. He further pleaded that the house belonged to Gulabchand Naik, on whose death was inherited by the non-applicants 1 to 7 (sons and widow) besides two daughters Krishna Jain (the applicant) and Nayantara Jain that the daughters of Gulabchand Naik being co-owners, ought to have joined as plaintiffs in the suit. The suit, the non-applicant No.8 said, was not maintainable by some of the co-owners. 2. A request was made by the non-applicant No.8 for joinder of the two daughters as parties to the suit. The trial Court turned down the request. Krishna Jain (one of the daughters) then came forward with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being joined as a party. She said, she was a married daughter of Gulabchand to whom the house originally belonged. She was a co-sharer, interested in the result of the suit. The non-applicants 1 to 7 declined to make her a party. The trial Court rejected the application and hence this revision. 3. Held: It would be academic to discuss all these authorities since the counsel for the non-applicants 1 to 7 (the plaintiffs) has made a statement before me that his clients do not recognise Krishna Jain to be a co-owner and deny her title to receive a share in the rent. That being so, it legitimately follows that they do not represent her interest in the property and claim to hold adversely to her. The question whether Ratanchand is or is not a Karta of the family or whether he, in his capacity as co-owner represents the whole body of co-owners, does not arise. If Krishna Jain is not acknowledged as a Co-owner, she is as good as a third party and not represented in the suit by anyone. The plaintiffs, the counsel says, take the risk of non-joinder or Krishna Jain as a party. If the suit without her is held not maintainable, they are prepared to be non-suited. If Krishna Jain is not acknowledged as a Co-owner, she is as good as a third party and not represented in the suit by anyone. The plaintiffs, the counsel says, take the risk of non-joinder or Krishna Jain as a party. If the suit without her is held not maintainable, they are prepared to be non-suited. They do not wish to implead third party in a rent suit and complicate the matter by inviting decision on questions of title. 4. "Questions involved in the suit" mean questions between parties to the litigation i.e. questions with regard to the right set up by the plaintiffs and denied by the defendant. In a rent suit it is the relationship of landlord and tenant that matters. Introducing third parties and raising questions inter se between plaintiffs or defendants is not permissible under Order 1 rule 10, CPC. That is what the trial Court has done. Krishna Jain was not impleaded as a party because her title was being denied as a co-owner, and it was advisable that she filed a suit for establishing her title and obtaining consequential reliefs. 1972 JLJ 674 , 1975 MPLJ 223 , AIR 1976 SC 2335 and AIR 1977 SC 1599 referred to. Revision dismissed.