JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - The tenant has approached this Court against order dated 29.4.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh declining his application for impleadment of Chandigarh Administration through the Chief Administrator and the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh as party respondent. The principal reason for declining the application is that the tenant-petitioner has admitted the landlord-respondents to be his landlords and it has been held that the tenant-petitioner is not entitled to challenge the title of his landlords. On the aforementioned basis, it has been found that the U.T. Administration is not a necessary or proper party. In the absence of U.T. Administration, the suit can be decided which is merely for recovery and ejectment of the tenant-petitioner. 2. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that the landlord-respondents are dominus litis and are entitled to pursue the remedy against the tenant-petitioner. The lis between the landlord-respondents as well as U.T. Administration has got nothing to do with the prayer made by the landlord-respondents in their suit for ejectment of and recovery from the tenant-petitioner. The plea of the tenant-petitioner that the building has been resumed and landlord-respondents are no longer owner is absolutely misconceived because for the purposes of ejectment and payment of rent, the tenant-petitioner cannot deny the title of his owner. The aforementioned legal position is evident from Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Anar Devi (Smt.) v. Nathu Ram, 1994(4) SCC 250. In this regard observations of the Supreme Court deserve to be noticed which read as under :- "11. "Doctrine of tenants estoppel" which governs the relationship of a landlord and tenant is founded on a contract of tenancy entered into by them, is well settled. Jessel, M.R., who adverted to that doctrine in Stringers Estate, Shaw v. Jones-Ford explains it thus : "Where a man having no title obtains possession of land under a demise by a man in possession who assumes to give him a title as tenant, he cannot deny his landlords title, as, for instance, if he takes for twenty-one years and he finds that the landlord has only five years title, he cannot after five years set up against the landlord the jus tertii, though, of course, the real owner can always recover against him. That is a perfectly intelligible doctrine. He took possession under a contract to pay rent so long as he held possession under the landlord, and to give it up at the end of the term to the landlord, and having taken it in that way he is not allowed to say that the man whose title he admits and under whose title he took possession has not a title. That is a well-established doctrine. That is estoppel by contract." Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.