JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 06.10.2010 whereby application moved by petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent made an application for seeking eviction against non-petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner herein also preferred an application for eviction against the same non-petitioners. Since, the matter was settled between the petitioner and the non-petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, property was evicted and given to the petitioners. The application for eviction so moved by petitioner stood disposed of accordingly. 3. Petitioner thereupon made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. to seek their imp-leadment in pending application for eviction made by the non-petitioner No.2. The application aforesaid has been dismissed. It is stated that since, other application for eviction filed by petitioner has already been granted, he is a necessary party in application moved by non-petitioner No.2. 4. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the order impugned herein. 5. Vide the order dated 06.10.2010, application for imp-leadment was rejected after taking note of the fact that imp-leadment sought by petitioner was to seek decision on the title of the property whereas the Rent Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short "the Act of 2001") cannot decide such issue. Looking to aforesaid, application moved by petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel for petitioner herein submits that issue of title can also be decided by the Rent Tribunal being ancillary issue. Thus, the dispute raised by petitioner regarding title of property could have been seen to do the complete justice. 6. I have considered the aforesaid aspect also. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to show that as to how the issue of title can be decided even as ancillary issue if such jurisdiction does not exist under the Provision of the Act of 2001. Learned counsel could not show that with their presence, other than issue of title, any other issue can be decided. They are seeking their presence in pending case only to seek title of the property in dispute. 8. Learned counsel could not show that with their presence, other than issue of title, any other issue can be decided. They are seeking their presence in pending case only to seek title of the property in dispute. 8. In the aforesaid background, I do not find any error in the impugned order because by imp-leadment of petitioners herein they would be seeking an adjudication of the issue of title, which is otherwise not under the jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and same is accordingly, dismissedWrit petition dismissed. *******