Judgment :- These revisions are filed by the revision petitioner, landlord as against the impugned orders of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruppur in ordering impleadment of the first respondent as party in the Rent Control Appeals. .2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - .The revision petitioner as land lord of the petition premises filed RCOP.No:3 of 1995 against one Subbaia Naidu, the father of the second respondent in CRP.Nos:864 and 866 of 2005 before the learned Rent Controller, Palladam, for eviction on the ground of willful default in the payment of monthly rents and also on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. He also filed RCOP.NO.4 of 1995 against the second and third defendants in CRP.No:865 of 2005 on the same two grounds. The said Subbaia Naidu, fatehr of the respondents in CRP.Nos:864 and 866 of 2005 filed RCOP.No:1 of 1996 before the same Rent Controller, Palladam for deposit of monthly rents into court impleading the petitioner as respondent in the said RCOP.No.1 of 1996. .3. Pending the above Rent Control Original Petitions, the first respondent/temple in all the three CRPs filed I.A.No:6 of 2001 for impleading themselves as party to the proceedings and the same has been dismissed after contest. The first respondent however, did not challenge the order passed in the said I.A., either by way of filing an appeal or a Revision before this Court. Therefore the order in the Interlocutory Application No:6 of 2001 became final. 4. Thereafter the learned Rent Controller, Palladam, after contest by the tenants allowed the RCOP.Nos:3 and 4 of 1995 filed by the revision petitioner and ordered eviction of the tenant Subbaiah Naidu in RCOP.No:3 of 1995 and respondents 2 and 3 in CRP.No.864 of 2005. The learned Rent Controller, as a necessary corollary dismissed the RCOP.No.1 of 1996 filed by Subbaiah Naidu for deposit of rents into court. 5. The respondents/tenants aggrieved by the order passed in RCOP.Nos: 3 and 4 of 1995 and 1/1996 preferred appeals in RCA.NOs:3,2, and 1 of 2002 respectively before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruppur, which are still pending. Pending the same, the first respondent-Temple, once again filed I.A.Nos:2164, 2165 and 2166 of 2004 for impleading themselves as party to the Rent Control Appeal proceedings. Pending the same, the first respondent-Temple, once again filed I.A.Nos:2164, 2165 and 2166 of 2004 for impleading themselves as party to the Rent Control Appeal proceedings. The revision petitioner contested the said applications and also brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority about the earlier dismissal of such an application filed in I.A.No:6 of 2001 before the Rent Controller, Palladam. However, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruppur allowed the I.As filed for impleadment holding that since there is a dispute as to the ownership of the demised property and patta has been granted in favuor of the temple after direction given by the High Court, Madras such impleadment would be necessary and proper for the disposal of the appeals. Aggrieved of the same, the present three Revision Petitions are filed. .6. The first respondent-temple have filed the said three I.As stating that the revision petitioner is not at all the owner of the demised property and it is only the Temple is the sole and absolute owner of the property. The revision petitioner is neither receiving nor entitled to receive rent and the same are being paid by the third respondent to the temple only. The demised property is in possession of the temple for over 100 years and the same has been recorded in the revenue records. The patta has been granted in favour of the temple in respect of Survey Nos:261B/2 and 262/3 in an extent of 0.33 acres and 0.8 acres respectively. The revision petitioner is not having any valid documents to prove his title over the said survey numbers and therefore, the temple is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the Rent Control Appeal proceedings, otherwise, irreparable loss, injury and hardship will be caused to the temple. 7. The revision petitioner resisted the said Interlocutory Applications filed by the temple and averred that the demised property is not comprised in S.F.No.261/B2 or 262/3 as alleged by the temple; the patta issued will not bind the revision petitioner; the tenant himself never denied the title of the Revision petitioner; he purchased the building situate in S.F.No:261/B1 for valuable consideration under a sale deed dated 12. 1981 and the vendors of the revision petitioner were in possession and enjoyment of the property as the absolute owners thereof for several decades; similar prayer in I.A.No.6 of 2001 was rejected by the Rent Controller; the petition has been filed only at the instance of the tenant to protract the proceedings. 8. A perusal of the typed set of papers and the pleadings contained therein, particularly the contents of the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed in the three Interlocutory Applications would only go to show that an Application with similar prayer for impleadment filed before the Rent Controller has been dismissed after contest and there is no appeal or revision preferred by the first respondent-temple. When the said order became final, the first respondent-temple is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata in filing the three I.As arising out of the very same proceedings. .9. The first respondent-temple claims that the land belongs to the temple for over 100 years and it receves the rents. However, the patta will not confer any title on the first respondent-temple. In fact the patta has been issued in favour of the first respondent-temple in respect of S.Nos: S.F.No.261/B2 or 262/3, whereas the Revision petitioner claims that the demised property situated in Survey No:261/B1 which has been purchased by him for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed from his vendors who were been in possession and enjoyment of the same for several decades. It is also to be seen that the tenants have not denied the title of the revision petitioner and in fact the tenant filed RCOP.No.1 of 1996 against the revision petitioner for deposit of rents in to court. Therefore, unless the title to the demised property is decided in an appropriate suit before the competent civil court, the first respondent-temple cannot be said to be a person interested in the litigation between the landlord-revision petitioner and the second respondent-tenant and therefore the temple is neither a necessary nor a property party to the proceedings. The dispute before the Rent Control Authorities constituted under the Rent Control Act is only between the landlord and the tenants and not between the first respondent on one side and the petitioner and the tenants on the other side. The dispute before the Rent Control Authorities constituted under the Rent Control Act is only between the landlord and the tenants and not between the first respondent on one side and the petitioner and the tenants on the other side. Further, no useful purpose will be served by impleading the first respondent-temple a party to the rent control appeal proceedings as it is not entitled to or claim any relief in the proceedings as either against the revision petitioner-landlord or as against the tenants. The RCOPs have been allowed and order of eviction has been passed on the ground of willful default in payment of monthly rents and for demolition and construction. Assuming that even after eviction, the revision petitioner is going to demolish and reconstruct new building in the said survey number, the same cannot be done over a night and the first respondent-temple can always file a suit and get interim injunction making out a prima facie case of title in its favour. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed in the three I. As are liable to be interfered with and all the CRPs are liable to be allowed. 10. In the result, all the three CRPs are allowed, setting aside the order of impleadment passed in I.A.Nos. 2164, 2165 and 2166 of 2004 in RCA.Nos: 1,2 and 3 of 2002 respectively passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, (Sub Court) Tiruppur. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps are closed. No costs.