Honble YADAV, J. — The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 12.5.94 passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi in Original Civil Suit No. 313 of 1992, Nagendra vs. Jahoor Khan allowing an application moved by Bal Kishan under O.l r. 10 CPC for his implement on the ground inter alia that disputed shop originally belong to Shri Dwarkanath (Dwarkadheesh) Mandir Public Trust, Phalodi and the plaintiff has wrongly filed the present suit for ejectment against the tenant alleging himself to be owner of the shop. It is also alleged in the application that the applicant Balkishan is the President of the aforesaid Trust, therefore, he should be impleaded as a party. (2). The aforesaid application for impleadment moved by Balkishan under 0.1 r. 10 C.P.C. was opposed by the revisionist and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the impleadment application was allowed. (3). Aggrieved against the impugned order, dated 12.5.94 the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision before this Court. (4). On 19.4.95 notices were issued to opposite party No.l and 2 to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted and allowed. After due service of notices upon the opposite party No.l and 2, both of them did not care to appear before this Court today. (5). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proposed to dispose of this revision on merit after hearing the learned counsel for revisionist. (6). Learned counsel for the revisionist argued before me that under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as Act No.17 of 1950) a suit for ejectment is always filed by a landlord against a tenant. According to the learned counsel for revisionist question of ownership is foreign in a suit for ejectment filed by landlord against his tenant under the Act No. 17 of 1950. (7). Learned counsel for the revisionist has invited my attention towards the definition given under Section 3(iii) of the Act No. 17 of 1950, which reads thus : — "3. According to the learned counsel for revisionist question of ownership is foreign in a suit for ejectment filed by landlord against his tenant under the Act No. 17 of 1950. (7). Learned counsel for the revisionist has invited my attention towards the definition given under Section 3(iii) of the Act No. 17 of 1950, which reads thus : — "3. Definitions — In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context — (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) "Landlord" means any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver or any other person or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to a sub-tenant." (8). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of the revisionist. In my humble opinion a suit for ejectment under Act. No. 17*of 1950 is always filed by a landlord who has given the premises to a tenant on rent and to whom rent is payable. In nut shell, suit for eviction is filed by a landlord against his tenant with whom a contract of tenancy exist. Under Act. No. 17 of 1950, the question of title or ownership is not to be decided only rights and liabilities of landlord and tenants are to be decided. (9). The element of ownership of the premises is not one of the characteristic of a landlord but it is receipt of the rent or right to receive the rent which is dominating factor within the meaning of Section 3(iii) of Act No.17 of 1950. The expression Landlord used u/s. 3(iii) of the aforesaid Act does not include owner" within its ambit as the ownership to the premises cannot be subject matter of tenancy. The question of ownership or title normally cannot be gone into in a suit or proceeding initiated under Act No. 17 of 1950. (10). The expression Landlord used u/s. 3(iii) of the aforesaid Act does not include owner" within its ambit as the ownership to the premises cannot be subject matter of tenancy. The question of ownership or title normally cannot be gone into in a suit or proceeding initiated under Act No. 17 of 1950. (10). In abundant caution it is made clear that in a peculiar circumstance of a case if a question of ownership or title is cropped up incidently, it can be summarily decided in order to give a complete and effective adjudication of the rights and liabilities of a tenant and landlord created under Act No. 17 of 1950 not otherwise. It is well to remember that Act No. 17 of 1950 is a special law. It is settled principle of jurisprudence that a special law shall prevail over the general law. (11). Learned counsel for revisionist has placed before be a Kachha copy of the application moved by Balkishan. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid application moved by Balkishan under O.l r.10 CPC reveals that he has nowhere alleged that a contract of tenancy either oral or in writing was entered into between him and the tenant. It is nowhere alleged that on basis of contract of tenancy entered into either with him or with Shri Dwarkanath (Dwarkadheesh) Mandir Public Trust, Phalodi either he or trust fall within the definition of landlord and as such he being President of the said Trust is entitled to receive the rent. A close scrutiny of the application further reveals that the main ground disclosed in the application for impleadment is that Shri Dwarkanath (Dwarkadheesh) Mandir Public Trust, Phalodi is the owner of the disputed shop. As observed in earlier part of this judgment, the question of title or ownership is not to be decided in a suit filed under Act No.17 of 1950. Only the rights and liabilities between the landlord and tenant are to be adjudicated upon. (12). In my humble opinion for the aforesaid reasons, the learned trial court ought to have rejected the application moved by Balkishan under O.l r. 10 CPC. (13). I presume from the absence of Balkishan, opposite party No.2, before this Court to-day after effective and personal service on him that he has been set up by defendant tenant to stall and delay the decision of suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff-revisionist. (13). I presume from the absence of Balkishan, opposite party No.2, before this Court to-day after effective and personal service on him that he has been set up by defendant tenant to stall and delay the decision of suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff-revisionist. Balkishan, opposite party No.2, cannot claim to have a vested right to stall and delay the disposal of the suit for ejectment filed by the revisionist. (14). As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the instant revision is allowed and the order dated 12.5.94 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi is hereby set aside. Since the opposite parties irrespective or sufficient service did not appear before this court to oppose the revision, therefore, cost is made easy.