ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED of the order dated 25. 4. 2003, passed in RA No. 353 of 2002 by the learned Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Chief Judge allowed the appeal and setting aside the order dated 22. 10. 2002 made in IA No. 263 of 2002 in RC No. 112 of 1998 by the learned IV Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC, to implead the petitioner herein as Respondent No. 2 in the RC. ( 2 ) FEW facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision, briefly stated, are that the first respondent herein - landlord filed the R. C. for eviction of the tenant - 2nd respondent herein. During the pendency of the rent control case, the petitioner herein filed IA No. 263 of 2002 to implead him as a party respondent contending that the first respondent herein is his own elder brother and premises belongs to him, his father and his brother and, as such, each of them are entitled to l/3rd undivided share. It is also his case that during the lifetime of his father, he used to collect rents of the suit schedule premises. While so, the first respondent herein filed OS no. 646 of 1991 before the learned II Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the implead petitioner and his father for partition and the subject-matter of the said suit is also the subject-matter of the R. C. It is also his case, that the father of the implead petitioner, during his lifetime, executed a Will bequeathing his l/3rd share in favour of the implead petitioner and, thus, after the death of his father, 2/3rd of the property should devolve on him exclusive of l/3rd share in favour of the 1st respondent. It is his further case that during trial of the suit, he came to know about the filing of the eviction petition by the first respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent, to deprive him of his rights over the suit schedule property. It is his further case that during trial of the suit, he came to know about the filing of the eviction petition by the first respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent, to deprive him of his rights over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that as the implead petitioner is the owner of 2/3 rd of the property, and the 2nd respondent herein is a tenant, suppressing these facts, rent control case was filed and, therefore, prayed to implead him as the second respondent in the R. C. ( 3 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Rent Controller allowed the implead petition, impleading him as 2 in the R. C. on the ground that Ex. P1 reveals that the Respondent No. 1 herein filed suit for partition and separate possession against his father and brothers including the implead petitioner - third party - petitioner herein. Ex. Pl further reveals that Item No. 2 of the petition schedule property i. e. mulgi bearing No. 15-9-69 situated at Siddiambar bazar, Hyderabad, is included in the suit schedule and he prayed the Court to pass preliminary decree declaring that the petitioner is entitled 1/3rd share and separate possession of the same, whereas, the implead petitioner claims 2/3rd share of the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will executed by the father. Both the implead petitioner and Respondent No. l are claiming the property under separate Wills executed by their father. ( 4 ) BASED on Ex. Pl, the implead petition was allowed and the first respondent herein preferred an appeal being RA No. 353 of 2002, the lower appellate Judge has set aside the same on the ground that the first respondent, in the R. C, filed the suit and whereas the implead petitioner has raised the question of title, even though did not dispute the jural relationship. The Court below allowed the appeal observing that in view of the suit for partition is pending which raise the title dispute, the petitioner herein intends to come on record in the eviction proceedings, based on the Will executed by their father and also following the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Soni v. K. Nageswar Rao, 1991 (3) ALT 200 . The Division Bench of this court in this case has held that in Rent control Proceedings for eviction of a tenant by landlord, when third party raises disputed question of title, he is not entitled to get impleaded, but he can seek the relief in a regular civil suit on the question of title. It is further held that where a disputed question of title is raised or has to be decided at the instance of the third party, the scheme of the Act does not permit his impleading in rent control proceedings. It is also held that the Rent control Act is a special Act by which a statutory protection is granted to a tenant and, at the same time, the landlord is intended to have a speedier remedy than in a regular suit and, therefore, complicated questions of title shall not be decided by the Rent Controller. The proper procedure for the third party would be to file a regular civil suit before a Civil Court for deciding the dispute as to title. It is further held that so far as the third party seeking to get impleaded is concerned, he is not seeking a decision only incidentally on the question of title and so far as he is concerned, the question of title is the main question in which he is interested and normally, he has to go to the Civil Court for effective decision thereon. ( 5 ) APPLYING the said principle to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that it is not the intendment of the Legislature to entrust the Rent controllers with the task of adjudicating title over the demised premises in a rent control proceeding and the proper remedy, for the person, claiming right over the demised premises to invoke the jurisdiction of Competent Civil Court and agitate about the title dispute, inasmuch as he is interested in the title of the property. Therefore, this is an important consideration to deny a third party any right to get impleaded in an eviction case before the rent Controller for the purpose of raising a dispute as to the title. Therefore, this is an important consideration to deny a third party any right to get impleaded in an eviction case before the rent Controller for the purpose of raising a dispute as to the title. The provisions of the code of Civil Procedure are applicable in rent Control Proceedings, where there is no adequate provision in the A. P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 or Rules and if does not offend the scheme and purpose of the Act. But, Section 10 (i) proviso and Sections 10 (2) (vi), 12 and 13 the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is limited to decide whether denial or claim by the tenant is bone fide or not and it cannot decide existence of title with finality. In the court of the Rent Controller, where the landlord applies for eviction, the only question that the Rent Controller is competent to decide is whether the denial or claim of the and lord s title by the tenant, if any, is bona fides or not and if it is bona fide, the landlord can sue in the Civil Court for eviction on one or other of the grounds mentioned in sections 10, 12 or 13 of the Act and if it is not bona fide, the landlord can get eviction before the Rent Controller inasmuch as such a denial or claim of the tenant regard the landlord s title, if it not bona fide, permits eviction to be ordered by the Controller, but when a tenant, leave alone a third party, as in the present case, the implead petitioner, who is a party to the eviction proceedings, raises a dispute or claim as to the title of he landlord, the Rent Controller has no urisdiction to decide whether the landlord ms title to the property or not. Therefore, he jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is imited. On this premise, the order of the learned Rent Controller suffers from patent illegality and, consequently, the lower appellate Court is right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner - implead petitioner. For these reasons, I do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned herein and the civil revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.