JUDGMENT This revision petition stems from an order dated 6.8.92 passed by the 11th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in C.O.S. No. 57-A of 1991 whereby the prayer of the present applicant for joining her as a party to the litigation under O. 1, R. 10 CPC has been disallowed. A further prayer for restraining the plaintiff from realising 1/8th portion of the rent has also been disallowed. Now in the instant case it is a suit for ejectment on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit. By seeking the intervention and joining as a party the applicant wants this suit to be converted into a suit of title and partition which cannot be allowed. The suit of the plaintiff has to succeed or fail on its own merits and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to add the petitioner as a party against whom he does not want any relief and against whom he does not want to fight. A Division Bench of this Court in 1985 JLJ 191 (Sunil and others v. Satvanaravan Dubey and others) has held that when a suit by landlord is based on the contract of tenancy, the question of title is not relevant. Any party cannot be joined as defendant resulting in changing the nature of the suit as a title suit. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Division Bench Authority also the order passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge is justified. Therefore, it is not a fit case for interfering with the order of the trial Court. 1976 JLJ 84 (FB) and 1985 JLJ 191 relied on. Revision dismissed.