JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - Anil Kumar Singh filed a suit for ejectment against Abdul Aziz and Akbar Singh on the ground that they were in arrears of rent. 2. The two tenants denied that Anil Kumar Singh was the owner and landlord and claimed that the applicant Allah Rabbul Almin was the owner of the building. The applicant-revisionist was impleaded as defendant in the suit. 3. The Trial Court found that in the instant suit the only question to be determined was as to whether Abdul Aziz and Akbar Khan were the tenants and Anil Kumar Singh was the landlord. The Court has held that it will not go into the question as to whether the applicant was the owner of the premises in suit. The court having found that Anil Kumar Singh was the landlord decreed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. 4. In the revision it is contended that when the title of Anil Kumar Singh was denied by the tenants Abdul Aziz and Akbar Khan, who were supported by the applicant-revisionist, the court should have decided this issue. 5. I am in entire argument with the Trial Court that in a suit by the landlord against his tenant, the tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord without vacating the premises and handing over its possession. Further they cannot set up the right of a third party to the property in suit. A third party in a suit for ejectment by the landlord cannot get his rights adjudicated and cannot get a declaration that he is the owner of the property. 6. The revision is dismissed. Since the revision is being dismissed summarily, I make no order as to costs.