S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 5-4-2003 (Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Bulandshahr, the order dated 7-7- 2000 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition) passed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, and the order dated 27-11-2002 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Bulandshahr. 2. The dispute relates to an accommodation situated in Mohalla Lakhsmanganj, Kasba Khurja, District Bulandshahr, the details whereof have been given in the plaint of the suit referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to "the disputed accommodation". 3. It appears that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed a Suit against the defendant respondent No. 2 in the Court of Judge, Small Cause, Bulandshahr, inter alia seeking decree for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages etc. in respect of the disputed accommodation. 4. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said Suit that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 was the owner /landlord of the disputed accommodation and that the defendant respondent No. 2 was the tenant of the disputed accommodation at monthly rent of Rs. 45/- and that the defendant respondent No. 2 paid rent for the period with effect from 1-1-1994 to 31-3-1994 for which the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had issued the receipt and that thereafter, with effect from 1-4-1994, the defendant-respondent No. 2 did not pay any rent in respect of the disputed accommodation and that the tenancy of the defendant-respondent No. 2 in respect of the disputed accommodation was determined by the notice given no 7-10-1994 which was served personally on the defendant-respondent No. 2 on 8-10-1994 and that the defendant-respondent No. 2 gave incorrect reply through his Advocate on 26-10-1994 and that in the said reply, the defendant- respondent No. 2 denied the title of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. 5. The said Suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994. Copy of the plaint of the said S. C. C. Suit No 148 of 1994 has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 6. 5. The said Suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994. Copy of the plaint of the said S. C. C. Suit No 148 of 1994 has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 6. The said Suit was contested by the defendant-respondent No. 2 by filing Written Statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. 7. It appears that during the pendency of the said Suit, the petitioner as Third Party filed an Impleadment application ( No. 23-C) under Section 151 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, praying for being impleaded as the defendant No. 2 in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 1994. An affidavit ( No. 24-C) was filed in support of the said impleadment application. 8. Copies of the said impleadment application (No. 23-C) and its supporting affidavit (No. 24-C) have been annexed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4, respectively to the writ petition. 9. It further appears that the learned Judge, Small Cause Court by the order dated 9-5-1995, inter alia, allowed the said impleadment application (No. 23-C ). Copy of the said order dated 9-5-1995 has been filed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. 10. It further appears that against the said order dated 9-5- 1995, the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The said revision was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 55 of 1995. 11. By the judgment and order dated 7-7-2000, the said S. C. C. Revision No. 55 of 1995 was allowed by the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr. By the said judgment and order dated 7-7-2000, the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr set aside the order dated 9-5-1995 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, and the case was remanded back to the Judge, Small Cause Court for deciding the said impleadment application ( No. 23-C) in the light of the observations made in the said judgment and order dated 7-7-2000. 12. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 7-7-2000 has been filed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. 13. It further appears that after the remand, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court by the order dated 27-11-2002 rejected the said impleadment application (No. 23-C ). 12. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 7-7-2000 has been filed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. 13. It further appears that after the remand, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court by the order dated 27-11-2002 rejected the said impleadment application (No. 23-C ). Copy of the said order dated 27-11- 2002 has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. 14. It further appears that against the said order dated 27-11-2002, the Third Party (petitioner) filed a revision which was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 12 of 2003. 15. By the judgment and order dated 5-4-2003, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Bulandshahr dismissed the said S. C. C. Revision No. 12 of 2003 filed by the Third Party (petitioner) and confirmed the said order dated 27-11-2002 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Bulandshahr. 16. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 17. I have heard Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 18. Sri Qadeer submits that prior to the said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994, the Third Party (petitioner herein) had already filed a regular Suit being Civil Suit No. 111 of 1984 against the father of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 herein. The defendant respondent no 2 herein was also one of the defendants in the said Suit. After the death of the father of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 herein, the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 herein was substituted as defendant in the said Civil Suit No. 111 of 1984. In the circumstances, the submission proceeds, the Third Party ( petitioner herein) is a proper party in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994 even if the Third Party (petitioner herein) may not be a necessary party in the said Suit. 19. I have considered the submissions made by Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same. The said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994 has been filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant. 19. I have considered the submissions made by Sri M. A. Qadeer, learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same. The said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994 has been filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The success of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994 was dependant on establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendant-respondent No. 2. 20. The Third Party (petitioner) has disputed the title of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to the disputed accommodation. The Third Party (petitioner) is, my opinion neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994. The dispute of title raised by the Third Party (petitioner) cannot be made the subject matter of the said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994 which has been filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 and the defendant respondent No. 2. 21. It is noteworthy that any decree passed in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 148 of 1994 will not be binding on the Third Party (petitioner ). It is further noteworthy that the Third Party (petitioner) has already filed the said Civil Suit No. 111 of 1984 wherein rights of the Third Party ( petitioner) would be adjudicated. 22. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dublish v. Ajeet Kumar Dublish and another, 2003 (1) JCLR 669 (All) : 2003 (1) ARC 372 : 2003 (51) ALR 20, wherein it was laid down as under (Paragraph Nos. 21, 22, 24 and 26 of the said ALR): " (21) The revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was filed in 1998. In the year 2002, the petitioner filed the said application 50-Ga for impleadment alleging that the disputed shop was a joint Hindu family property, and there had been no partition amongst the members of the joint Hindu family and as such, the petitioner be impleaded in the said case. In the year 2002, the petitioner filed the said application 50-Ga for impleadment alleging that the disputed shop was a joint Hindu family property, and there had been no partition amongst the members of the joint Hindu family and as such, the petitioner be impleaded in the said case. Considering the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner in the said impleadment application, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was not a necessary or a proper party in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 297 of 1993 filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The rights and obligations of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 vis-a-vis the defendant- respondent No. 2 to be determined in the said suit were based on the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The relevant question to be considered in the said suit was as to whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendant-respondent No. 2. (22) The questions sought to be raised by the petitioner in the said impleadment application, (namely, regarding the disputed shop being joint Hindu Family property, or regarding there having been no partition of the Joint Hindu Family, etc.), pertained to the title to the disputed shop. The said questions pertaining to title arose between the petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, and the same were not relevant in the said suit. (24) Keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision in Smt. Prabha Saxena (supra), it is evident that the petitioner could not be permitted to raise the questions pertaining to title in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 297 of 1993, so as to convert a simple suit between landlord and tenant into a title suit. The petitioner was neither necessary party nor proper party in the said suit filed on the basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and the defendant- respondent No. 2. It is open to the petitioner to file separate regular suit for getting decided the questions pertaining to title between the petitioner and the plaintiff- respondent No. 1. (26) Applying the aforesaid principles, it is evident that the petitioner was neither necessary party nor proper party in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 297 of 1993 ". 23. It is open to the petitioner to file separate regular suit for getting decided the questions pertaining to title between the petitioner and the plaintiff- respondent No. 1. (26) Applying the aforesaid principles, it is evident that the petitioner was neither necessary party nor proper party in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 297 of 1993 ". 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The writ petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .