JUDGMENT : 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th April, 1986 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makrana whereby he has accepted the application moved by the defendant - non-petitioner for framing of three additional issues. 2. The brief facts which are necessary for the convenient disposal of this revision petition, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant - non-petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity and for recovery of arrears of rent. An application was filed under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying that three more additional issues may be framed which relate to title of the property. The defendant challenged the title of the plaintiff and claimed that he is not a tenant and the premises which he is occupying came to his share on account of partition. The application was opposed by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the question of the title cannot be gone into in a suit of tenancy. However, the learned Munsif Magistrate held that since the present case is an exceptional case as the tenant has challenged the title of the landlord in the beginning, therefore, he permitted the framing of 3 additional issues. 3. Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of title cannot be gone into in the present suit in view of a full bench decision of this Court wherein it has been categorically laid down that in a suit of tenancy the question of title cannot be gone into. Learned counsel in this connection has invited my attention to Smt. Pushpa Sharma v. Gopal Rawat, 1986 RLR 623 wherein it was observed as under:- "It is however, made clear that, as a general rule where a suit is filed on the basis of tenancy and relationship of landlord and tenant then such suit should be decided on the basis of tenancy alone, and it should not be converted into a title suit." 4. In the present case, though it is alleged that the tenant and landlord are brothers and premises in question are joint family property. In the present case, though it is alleged that the tenant and landlord are brothers and premises in question are joint family property. But the landlord-plaintiff has categorically asserted in his plaint that he is the owner of the property in question on the basis of the sale-deed executed in his favour and he has shown that he has paid the taxes of the premises in question from time to time. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the plaintiff-landlord has brought the present suit for eviction of the tenant and in a simple case like the present one it is not proper to go into the question of title. 5. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the tenant-defendant can certainly challenge the ownership in the beginning and he cannot be estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from raising such a plea. In this connection, he has heavily relied upon a decision of this Court in Bhaboot Mal v. Sens Mal, AIR 1973 Raj. 56 . In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Sharma's case 1986 RIR 623 a general proposition has been laid down that the suit filed on the basis of tenancy should not be converted into that of title suit. Therefore, in the present case if the present three additional issues are framed as prayed for by the defendant and the parties are permitted to lead evidence then it will certainly mean that his suit will decide the title of the party which as a general rule is not permitted in view of the judgment of the Bull Bench of this Court. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not think the view taken by the learned Munsif Magistrate appears to be correct. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed; the order passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate, Makrana dated 28th April, 1986 is set aside and the application filed by the defendant-non-petitioner for framing of three additional issues is rejected.Petition allowed.