JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 22, 1989, passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Munsif dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code filed by the applicant Barkat Ali. 2. Mst. Rukhsana filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against Jabbar from the shop in question. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was moved by Barkat Ali. It was averred in the application that Mst. Rukhsana has filed the suit against Jabbar for eviction on the basis that Jabbar is the tenant of Rukhsana. The suit filed by Rukhsana against Jabbar has been filed by the plaintiff Rukhsana in collusion with Jabbar while Jabbar is the tenant of Barkat Ali, against whom he has filed a suit for eviction and that suit is, also, pending. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned Munsif, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the question of ownership of the title of the property is not required to be gone into, the suit is for eviction and only the question whether the defendant is the. tenant of the plaintiff, has to be determined and no relief has been prayed by the plaintiff against the applicant Barkat Ali and, therefore, he is not a necessary party to the proceeding. The learned Munsif, therefore, dismissed the application filed by the applicant Barkat Ali. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as he has already filed a suit against Jabbar with respect to the same property on the ground that the shop in question was given on rent to Jabbar by him and he is his tenant and, therefore, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is not necessary to go into the question of title of the property in question. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is not necessary to go into the question of title of the property in question. The suit is purely based on the tenancy and the question whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not and whether he has committed default or not and whether any ground for eviction is available to the plaintiff, as envisaged under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, is available or not, that point has to be decided and the suit for eviction cannot be converted into a suit for title. No relief has been claimed against Barkat Ali and the title has not been taken into consideration. If the Court, after trial, comes to the conclusion that the defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff then the suit can be dismissed. It is only the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff' and the defendant which has to be considered. In this view of the matter, the learned lower Court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction in dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff. The order passed by the learned trial Court does not require any interference. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******