Order These two civil revisions between the same parties and against the same order are at the instance of the plaintiff. 2. C.R. No. 1384 of 1996 directed against that part of the order by which the suit has been converted into a full-fledged title suit and the plaintiff has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee for decision on question of title C.R. No. 1980 of 1996 is directed against the other part of the order by which intervention of Opp. Party No. 2 Md. Sayeed has been allowed C.R. No. 1384 of 1996 was initially filed against both parts of the order. Vide order dated 27.9.96, that civil revision was allowed to be confined to that part of the order by which the suit was converted into a full-fledged title suit and the plaintiff was directed to pay ad valorem court fee. The other civil revision was filed thereafter. Pursuant to notice issued to the opposite party in C.R. No. 1384/96 they entered appearance in that case. Since parties are the same, submission were made in both the cases. 3. C.R. No. 1980 of 1996 is treated as the main case, for the order directing the suit to be converted into a full-fledged title suit is the outcome and consequence of the addition of Md. Sayeed. The suit in question has been filed for eviction of defendant-opposite party no. 1. The intervenor-opp. party no. 2 claims title in himself. 4. This Court and other High Courts in India have almost unanimously held that intervention by third party in eviction suit should not be allowed as it is likely to change the nature of the suit. The issue in the eviction suit is whether the ground of eviction of the defendant-tenants has been proved, the question of title is to be seen only incidentally while examining the land lord-tenant relationship. Any intervention by third party, claiming independent title in himself, is therefore, bound to change the nature of the suit. Reference in this connection may be made to the decisions reported in AIR 1974 Patna 364, 1988 BLT (Rep) 179, AIR 1969 Orissa 116, AIR 1959 Rajasthan 131, AIR 1958 J & K 39, AIR 1977 Orissa 183 and AIR 1978 J & K 84. In these premises, the order allowing addition of Md. Sayeed cannot be said to be in accordance with law. In these premises, the order allowing addition of Md. Sayeed cannot be said to be in accordance with law. The order is, therefore, set aside. 5. As a consequence of setting aside the order of addition, Civil Revision No. 1384 of 1996 has virtually become infructuous. As indicated above, the suit has been directed to be converted into a full-fledged title suit in view of the addition of the intervenor, the addition having been set aside, the question of conversion of the suit into a full-fledged title suit or payment of ad valorem court fee by the' plaintiff does not arise. That part of the order is also accordingly set aside. 6. Both the civil revisions are, thus allowed.