M. K. SHARMA ,j. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6. 6. 98 passed by the Additional District Judge in Misc. Case No. 36/1997, By the aforesaid order the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code seeking for review of the judgment and decree dated 31. 5. 97. ( 2 ) ASUIT was instituted by the respondent as the piaintiff seeking for a decree for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises and for payment of damages/ mesne profits. The suit premises consists of one drawing room, one dinning room, three led rooms with attached bath rooms, one study room, one lounge, one kitchen, one lobby, garage and servant quarter with attached bath room and situated at C-646, Mew Friends Colony, New Delhi. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement and a lease deed dated 31. 7. 1984 was executed between the parties. A tenancy was, therefore, created in respect of the aforesaid premises under the aforesaid registered lease deed dated 31. 7. 1984. ( 3 ) IN the aforesaid suit nine issues were framed of which Issue No. 1 and Issue No. 8 were in the following manner:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the demised premises and not Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD ( 4 ) THE trial court received evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the counset appearing for the parties decided all the issues by his judgment and order dated 31. 5. 97 and decreed the suit granting a decree for possession of the suit premises and also for recovery of damages/mesne profits. The petitioner filed an application seeking for review of the aforesaid judgment and order under Section 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Civil Procedure Code. It is also an admitted position that an appeal was also filed as against the aforesaid judgment and decree but the said appeal was not in form and, therefore, the same was returned to the counsel appearing for the petitioner after which the appeal was not re-filed. It is also an admitted position that an appeal was also filed as against the aforesaid judgment and decree but the said appeal was not in form and, therefore, the same was returned to the counsel appearing for the petitioner after which the appeal was not re-filed. It cannot be disputed that an appeat lies as against the aforesaid judgment and decree and such an appeal was not preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law and instead the aforesaid application under Order 47 Rule 1-CPC was preferred and contested seeking forreview against the findings on issues No. 1 to 8. The present revision petition is filed against the order of rejection of the said application. ( 5 ) THE main contention raised in the present petition is that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon, who is the real owner of suit premises. It was also submitted that during the tendency of the proceedings, Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon, the original owner of the property died and his legs representative, namely, his wife and the son should have been impleaded in the proceedings and in their absence no decree could have bee n passed in the aforesaid suit. It was also submitted that after the death of Sh Karanjit Singh Sekhon the respondent has no locus standi to maintain the present suit, for Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon who was the son of the present respondent married a French lady and that according to the provisions of Indian Succession Act the mother is not a legal representative of the deceased. The aforesaid submission is refuted by the counsel appearing for the respondent. ( 6 ) IN the present case, a registered lease deed was executed in respect of the suit premises in between the petitioner and the respondent. The said lease deed is dated 31. 7. 84 and was executed between the petitioner and the respondent describing themselves as tenant and landlady. The said document has also been proved in accordance with law in the suit as Ex. P-1. The trial court relied on the said registered lease deed entered into between the parties describing themselves as tenant and the landlady and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises. The trial court also held that the son Sh. P-1. The trial court relied on the said registered lease deed entered into between the parties describing themselves as tenant and the landlady and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the suit premises. The trial court also held that the son Sh. Karanjit Singh was not a necessary party to the suit as the suit was between the landlady and the tenant and under the lease deed, which is a registered document and exhibited as Ex. P-1, she was empowered to terminate the lease and file a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises. The said findings are legal and valid and based on cogent reasons. Even otherwise, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the title of the respondent, the landlady under the registered lease deed in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this connection, reference could be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh and Another s. Smt. Jogindero and Others reported in AIR 1996 S. C. 1654 and in Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and Others reported in AIR 1976 S. C. 2335. ( 7 ) IN the appflication filed under the provisions of Section 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code seeking for review of judgment and decree dated 31. 5. 97, it was stated that since owner of the property, namely, Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon, the son of the respondent died during the pendency of the suit and he had left behind his wife and daughter, therefore, the respondent could not maintain or continue the suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen. The said plea was found to be without any merit and was accordingly, dismissed. The records indicate that no evidence was led to prove the aforesaid allegation that the said son married a French lady. There is no evidence on record to show that any other person has come forward to claim any share in the property. The respondent is the mother of Sh Karanjit Singh Sekhon and she is the landlady of the suit premises. It is denied by the respondent that her son. Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon was married at any point of time. The alleged legal representatives, namely, the wife and sons of Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon have not come forward and impleaded them in the aforesaid proceedings, Sh. It is denied by the respondent that her son. Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon was married at any point of time. The alleged legal representatives, namely, the wife and sons of Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon have not come forward and impleaded them in the aforesaid proceedings, Sh. Karanjit Singh Sekhon during his life time did not choose to implead himself as one of the parties in the eviction proceedings. Accordingly, no other person can have any right in the present proceedings, for the landlady has the power to institute a proceeding for eviction of the tenant. Thus, the findings on both the issues did not call for a^v review on the plea taken. ( 8 ) THE pleas taken up in the present petition are found to be without any merit in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. The petition stands dismissed.