Judgment U. S. Sharma, J. 1. The plaintiff petitioner filed Eviction suit No.18 of 1994 against the defendants-Opposite parties 1 to 4 on the ground of personal necessity and default under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Rent, lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1982. The Opposite Party No.5 filed a petition for being added as intervenor-defendant, which has been allowed by the impugned order and the Eviction suit has been converted into a Title Suit. The office was accordingly directed to submit a report about the court fee payable on account of conversion of the suit as a Title Suit. 2. Heard the parties and with their consent this Civil Revision application is disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The plaintiff filed a simple and pure suit for eviction. The questions to be considered for disposal of the suit were whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether a decree for eviction of the defendants on the grounds mentioned in the plaint was to be granted. The question as to whether a third party had title in relation to the suit premises or not or any other dispute by and between the plaintiff and the said third party were wholly irrelevant. 4. In the present case the Opposite party No.5 filed a petition to allow him to contest the suit by making him as in-tervenor-defendant on the plea that on 9-8-1973 his father had purchased 22 decimals of land from Mahanth gaukaran Puri and constructed five rooms on the western portion, which was let out to the police station. His father died when he was a minor. Only after having become major he could know about the suit property as well as the pendency of the suit. The original defendants denied relationship of landlord and tenant and the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and claimed their tenancy under the landlord, Bhik-hari Mahto. The intervenor claimed himself to be the son of said Bhikhari mahto. 5. The petitioners counsel submitted that in terms of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the court to implead a person arises only when such person was necessary for adjudicating upon and setting of all the questions involved in the suit. The intervenor claimed himself to be the son of said Bhikhari mahto. 5. The petitioners counsel submitted that in terms of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the court to implead a person arises only when such person was necessary for adjudicating upon and setting of all the questions involved in the suit. Evidently, at the instance of a third party neither an issue which does not arise out the pleadings of the original parties can arise or resolved upon. Therefore, as it was not necessary for the court below to decide the question of title by and between the plaintiffs-petitioners and intervenor-Opp. Party No.5 in the present suit, the impugned order impleading him as party hereto was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 supported the impugned order and submitted that by the impugned order the Opposite Party no.5 has not been impleaded as a plaintiff but has merely been imnleaded as a party-defendant to the suit. A number of decisions (AIR 1951 patna 550 ; air 1954 patna 128: 1968 BLJR 467 ; 1971 BLJR 186 : air 1977 patna 161 and 1985 PLJR 891 )on the discretion of THE court to grant equitable relief under Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code were cited. In my opinion, the said question was not relevant at this stage of the suit. The question of granting equitable relief under Order VII, Rule 7 in a suit for eviction arises either after the trial or at its and when the plaintiff failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant - but proved title. It was also necessary that issue of title was raised and fairly tried in the said suit. Further, the plaintiff would not have otherwise disqualified himself from receiving the equitable relief. The hearing of the present suit has not yet started. Secondly equitable relief under Order VII, rule 7, could be granted,against the defendant, who was alleged to be the tenant and not against a third party, who might be claiming his independent title over the suit property. The hearing of the present suit has not yet started. Secondly equitable relief under Order VII, rule 7, could be granted,against the defendant, who was alleged to be the tenant and not against a third party, who might be claiming his independent title over the suit property. Counsel for the Opposite Parties also cited some decisions for intervention under Order i, Rule 10 of the Code, but in my opinion, since the question is eventually one of landlord and tenant, a decision on the point whether property in question belonged to either the plaintiff or a third party is uncalled for and determination of such question will unnecessarily complicate the matter which appears unwarranted within the scope of the present suit and, therefore, a third party i. e. the Opposite Party No.5 ought not to have been made a party to the suit and the suit would not have been converted from a simple suit for eviction into one for determination of the title to the property between the plaintiff and the said third party. 7. A perusal of the impugned order revealed that the trial court failed to assign sufficient and cogent reasons in support of the impugned order. In my opinion, for effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit the pleading of the Opposite party No.5 was not necessary. On the basis of the pleading of the parties to the suit there was no occasion of framing and deciding issue, which arose to be decide the instance of the said third party. It was not necessary for the court below to decide the question of title between the plaintiff and the inter-venor-Opposite Party No.5 in the present suit. 8. The trial court committed an error of jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances "of the case, in impleading the Opposite Party No.5 as intervenor-defendant in the suit and thereby converting the simple suit for eviction into a complicated title suit. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and this civil Revision application is allowed. Revision Allowed.