JUDGMENT K.Kannan, J.:-The revision petitioners are third parties to the rent control proceedings who applied for impleadment on the ground that they are co-owners of the premises and the petition for eviction filed at the instance of the petitioner before the Rent Controller is not tenable. According to him, the petition has been filed against a party, who is not in possession, after he had vacated voluntarily and it is a dubious attempt of the petitioner before the Rent Controller to secure their forcible eviction who have agreed to purchase 2/3 share from other co-owners and presently in possession, who is not at all in possession. 2. The revision petitioners also contend that the respondent before the Rent Controller had remained ex parte and that itself would show that the respondent is not in possession of the property and that they have no interest to contest the petition. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that no evidence had been taken and the alleged agreement of sale from other co-owners had not even been filed. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners relies on a decision of this Court in Subhash Chand Vs. Hari Ram Vol.CXX(1998-3) PLR 322 that the person who took a stand that he was not a tenant in the premises and that in fact the premises had been let out to his brother though not a necessary party, could still be a proper party and could, therefore, be impleaded as a proper party for adjudication of the case. He also relies on yet another decision of this Court in Satwant Kaur Vs. Gurmail Singh and others Vol.CXX(1998-3) PLR 740, which deals with an issue of impleadment of party as a defendant in suit who had purchased a portion of the property from the very same person under whom the plaintiff claimed to have an agreement of sale. The applicants seek impleadment on the allegations that they have agreed to purchase a portion of the suit property from other co-owners and in possession of the property and were entitled to be impleaded. 4. I am afraid, I do not find any legal proposition as emerging from the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel that is applicable to the present contentions raised in the civil revision petition. 4. I am afraid, I do not find any legal proposition as emerging from the decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel that is applicable to the present contentions raised in the civil revision petition. The issue for an adjudication before the Rent Controller is the existence of a jural relationship of a tenant and the landlord. In the application, if any other issue relating to title would arise between the parties to the lis as regards bona fide denial of title, then it shall be always open for the Rent Controller to secure the attendance of every party, who would be interested in obtaining adjudication on such issues, to be brought on record. The third party to a proceeding who claims a co-equal right or a better right than the landlord, who had initiated the proceeding wants to come on record, could have his rights only in a properly instituted civil suit and not in a rent control proceedings. If the respondent against whom the landlord had filed a petition had indeed abandoned the premises and is not in possession of the property, the landlord will face the consequences of his wasteful action. 5. A person who is otherwise in possession of the property and who does not claim his right either under the petitioner or the respondent already on record, if he is not made as a party, his rights cannot be affected by any order of eviction that a landlord may secure. The impleadment sought for by the petitioners will needlessly complicate a simple issue for adjudication before the Rent Controller. It has been held in a decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal (2004) 6 SCC 762 that a rival claimant to title, claiming under a will of the original owner can not be impleaded in a rent control proceeding initiated by a landlord claiming as a natural heir of the same original owner. The underlying principle is that a question of title could not be directed to be decided in a rent control proceeding where the eviction is sought by a landlord not so much in his capacity as an owner but on the admitted pleading of a person who held a jural relationship with his tenant. The third party seeking entry, claiming to be a co-owner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The third party seeking entry, claiming to be a co-owner is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Civil Revision Petition is without merits and deserves to be dismissed and thus accordingly dismissed. No costs. --------------