Judgment Y.R. Meena, ACJ.-The petitioner-respondent is an ex-armyman. He filed an application under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1950) before the District Magistrate, Alwar for eviction of respondent No. 2 - appellant, from his house. After notice respondent No. 2 appellant filed an application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16, seeking leave to defend. 2. The District Magistrate, for the purpose of ascertaining the legal value ordered that let UIT and Nagar Parishad be a party-respondent. That order was passed on 17.07.2004. That order has been challenged by petitioner-respondent on the ground that Collector was not justified in making the UIT and Nagar Parishad as party-respondents and it is further prayed that application filed by respondent-appellant Mahendra Shastri under Section 16(6) be decided within statutory period of two months. 3. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has directed to dispose of the application filed under Section 16(6), seeking leave to defend, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 4. In appeal before us, the appellant has prayed that impugned order of learned Single Judge be set aside and order passed by District Magistrate on 17.07.2004 be upheld. 5. Learned Sr. Counsel for the respondents Mr. Mehta submits that purpose of provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1950 is that in case military persons retired from their services, immediately they should get their house back from the tenant. There is summary procedure provided for eviction of the tenant from the house of military personnel. After application for eviction filled by the respondent, the appellant has filed the application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16. 6. Mr. Mehta, learned Sr. Counsel for respondents submits that once the application has been filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 for permission from District Magistrate to contest the application filed by Col. Raghuveer Singh Choudhary, that application should be decided within one month. He further submits that instead of deciding that application within one month, the District Magistrate ordered that UIT and Nagar Parishad should be party respondents in the application filed by Col. Raghuveer Singh. That is absolutely wrong. Raghuveer Singh Choudhary, that application should be decided within one month. He further submits that instead of deciding that application within one month, the District Magistrate ordered that UIT and Nagar Parishad should be party respondents in the application filed by Col. Raghuveer Singh. That is absolutely wrong. In the summary procedure, they cannot be made as party respondents, as they are not interested party and learned Single Judge has rightly directed that the application filed by the appellant under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 should be disposed of within 30 days from the date of receipt of his order. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B.L. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant submits that the application under Section 16 in this case is not maintainable as Col. Raghuveer Singh is not the owner of the house in question. The owner of the house is Mahendra Shastri. When Col. Raghuveer Singh is not the owner of the house in question and owner of the house is Mahendra Shastri, the application under Section 16 is not maintainable. 8. He further submits that while the application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 has been filed by Mahendra Shastri-appellant and specially brought on record the fact that he is the real owner and annexed some documents of UIT and Nagar Parishad and Collector as well as the concerned officials of Nagar Parishad are made party, there is nothing wrong in it. In any case, the District Magistrate, if so, desires, he can enquire from the officials of the Nagar Parishad or UIT regarding the documents placed on record, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of District Magistrate. 9. In any case, the District Magistrate, if so, desires, he can enquire from the officials of the Nagar Parishad or UIT regarding the documents placed on record, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of District Magistrate. 9. No doubt there is a summary procedure provided under Section 16 of the Act, 1950 and under that Act if any military personnel retires, on his retirement, he needs a house, therefore, he can move a simple application before the District Magistrate concerned, where the property is situated, for ejectment of the tenant from his house for his personal use or for members of his family and then the District Magistrate shall issue notice to the tenant and if tenant has any case to defend his ejectment, he can take ground referred in Sub-section (6) of Section 16 and if the District Magistrate found that there is a fit case to defend the ejectment, the District Magistrate shall permit the tenant to defend his case. 10. The facts in the case in hand are that the application has been moved by Col. Raghuveer Singh in 2000, while he retired in 1989 from military service. The application should be moved within year from the date of his retirement. The ownership of the house itself is in dispute. When the respondent Col. Raghuveer Singh is not the owner of the house or the title is in dispute, in that case also, the application is not maintainable. However, that issue is not before us. The limited controversy in this appeal is whether District Magistrate has wrongly ordered to implead UIT and Nagar Parishad as party respondents on an application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the Act, 1950. We agree with Mr. Mehta, that Nagar Parishad and UIT are not the interested parties and they are not necessary to be made as party respondents on an application filed by Col. Raghuveer Singh under Section 16 of the Act, 1950. However, the facts in the case in hand are that when the appellant Mahendra Shastri has filed the application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16, he annexed some documents in respect of his claim that he is the owner of the property in question. Raghuveer Singh under Section 16 of the Act, 1950. However, the facts in the case in hand are that when the appellant Mahendra Shastri has filed the application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16, he annexed some documents in respect of his claim that he is the owner of the property in question. In our view though the Nagar Parishad and UIT cannot be made as party respondents on an application under Section 16 of the Act, 1950 but if some documents issued by them i.e., UIT and Nagar Parishad, the District Magistrate, if so desires, he can verify those documents and for implication of those documents, he can take the assistance of UIT and Nagar Parishad to see whether there is a real dispute of ownership of the house in question and can pass appropriate order thereafter. 11. It is true that Collector should pass order on an application under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the Act, 1950 within month but in the case in hand when objection has been raised that Col. Raghuveer Singh is not the owner of the property in question, in that case, even application under Section 16 of the Act, 1950 is not maintainable. However, when Collector wants the assistance of UIT and Nagar Parishad in respect of their documents placed on record, he will be at liberty to take the assistance of UIT as well as Nagar Parishad and find out whether the documents placed on record by Mahendra Shastri are genuine. It the documents are found genuine after their assistance and prima facie it appears that the title of the property in question is in dispute, no order under Section 16 of the Act can be passed by Collector for ejectment. Therefore, we direct the Collector to take the assistance of UIT as well as Nagar Parishad to find out the genuineness of the documents related to them which are filed by Mahendra Shastri and on the basis of those documents if it is found that there is genuine dispute of title of the property in question, the application under Section 16 is not maintainable. 12. 12. The Collector is also directed to take the necessary steps to dispose of the application of Mahendra Shastri, which has been filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the Act, 1950, as far as possible within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. The order of learned Single Judge is modified accordingly. The appeal stands partly allowed.