JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioners have filed this revision under section 115 CPC against the order dated 25.5.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sujangarh whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application moved by the defendant-petitioners u/O. XI, R. 4 CPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. 3. The defendants-petitioners sought the production of the following documents: (i) Original Title Deed (Patta) and Sale Deed; (ii) Original Title Deed and map of shop in dispute. (iii) Original Rent Note and Receipts. (iv) Original Rent Note of Roopchand. (v) Original rent note of adjacent shop. (vi) Original title deed of Nohra. (vii) Original rent note of another shop. 4. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed the suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioners with the averment that the initially the suit premises were taken on rent by defendant No. 1 from plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 1 used to realise the rent from defendant No. 1 and also used to give the receipt of the same on behalf of plaintiff No. 2. 5. The plaintiff No. 2 has claimed herself to be the landlord of the premises on the basis of the title. The above averment shows that the relationship between the landlord and the tenant is between plaintiff No. 1 and the defendants. The plaintiff No. 2 is the owner of the suit premises. The plaintiff, therefore, specifically pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 is the landlord but the suit has been filed on behalf of both of them on the basis of title deeds.Regarding documents sought to be produced, it may be stated here that the plaintiffs have not filed any documents along with the suit. No person can be a landlord only on the basis of the title deeds. The tenancy is created by the agreement between the two parties. As per the averments made in the plaint, the tenancy was created between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. The plaintiff No. 2 has been joined only on the basis of the title deed. Thus, the simple question that would fall for determination in this revision is whether on that basis, the plaintiff No. 2 can be a landlord and hence, a necessary party to the suit or not ? 6. The plaintiff No. 2 has been joined only on the basis of the title deed. Thus, the simple question that would fall for determination in this revision is whether on that basis, the plaintiff No. 2 can be a landlord and hence, a necessary party to the suit or not ? 6. Regarding rent notes of other tenants, it may be stated here that they are not at all relevant for this purpose. Hence, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. 7. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed summarilyRevision petition dismissed *******