Judgment 1. No body appears on behalf of the otherside, inspite of valid service of notice. 2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the court below, by which in a suit for eviction, it has allowed the intervenor-opposite party nos. 2 to 6 to be added as party-defendants in the suit on the assertion that the tenant-defendant in the written statement has claimed that he was tenant of the intervenors. 3. In my view, the court below has committed a jurisdictional error in widening the scope of the suit for eviction. In a suit for eviction, the question for decision is whether there is relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties or not. In case of complicated question of title being involved and it is found that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the suit will fail but the third party cannot be allowed as intervenordefendant to decide the question of title inter se between the plaintiff and the intervenor. 4. In the result, this revision application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the court below is set aside.