Judgment : 1. The petitioner herein filed these petitions for eviction against the 2nd respondent from the demised premises under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. She has also added the 3rd respondent herein as the 2nd respondent in the eviction petition. It is in the eviction petition that the premises originally belongs to one Lakshmi Ammal who died on 20.12.1997 and thereafter that tenant has been paying rent to her. 2. The first respondent filed applications in I.A. Nos. 28, 32, 27 and 30 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. Nos. 15, 17, 8 and 16 of 2007 to implead him as a party to the eviction petition by contending that he derives right in the property by means of a Will executed by the deceased Lakshmi Ammal. The learned Rent Controller, Salem, allowed the applications by observing that even the petitioner is a third party, he is none other than the close relative of the petitioner in R.C.O.P., that the Will is not produced and that can be decided at the time of trial in the petition. 3. Challenging the above said orders, this petitioner has filed appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 1 to 8 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Controller, Salem. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeals confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with these revisions. 4. In the eviction petition, it is stated that the petitioner has been receiving the rent from the tenant. As per Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 “landlord” includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own accord or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant. 5. The tenant has filed counter in the eviction petition in which he has stated that he paid the rent to Lakshmi Ammal and not to the petitioner. But as per the tenancy agreement, he has been paying the rent to the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent herein filed counter in the eviction petition denying the right of the petitioner to collect the rent. But as per the tenancy agreement, he has been paying the rent to the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent herein filed counter in the eviction petition denying the right of the petitioner to collect the rent. He has come out with a lengthy counter affidavit stating about the ownership of the property. 6. Presently, the dispute is between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the R.C.O.P. with regard to the dispute, who is competent to receive the rent from the tenant. The first respondent seeks to implead himself as a party to the R.C.O.P. proceedings with a claim under a Will. It has not been produced, hence the Court is unable to find out the rights of the first respondent in the premises. Further, even if the Will is produced, the learned Rent Controller cannot decide the title or right over the parties to the property. 7. It is a settled position that if any dispute with regard to the civil rights between the parties, he has no jurisdiction and he has to leave the matter to the decision of the Civil Court. In the case on hand, the first respondent claims title over the property on the strength on a Will stated to have been executed by Lakshmi Ammal. The Will has to be proved as per the provisions of Evidence Act and necessary discussion has to be taken up by the Court to decide the rights of the first respondent to the premises in question. These things could not be done by the Rent Controller and it cannot be transformed into a Civil Court. If the first respondent had to agitate his right or title over the premises in question, he has to establish the same before the appropriate forum. 8. In the considered view of this Court, impleadment of the first respondent into the Rent Controller proceedings would lead to confusion and it is not workable. Whatever being the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein, they have to agitate before the Rent Controller and it is for him to decide it in one way or other. 9. Mr. Whatever being the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein, they have to agitate before the Rent Controller and it is for him to decide it in one way or other. 9. Mr. T. Murugamanikkam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to a decision of this Court in 1974 T.L.N.J. 247 wherein this Court has observed that Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot apply to any proceedings under the Rent Controller Act. As such, the third party, who wanted to get himself impleaded as the petitioner in the main petition, is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtain recognition from the Rent Controller. He also cites another decision of this Court in (1996) 1 MLJ 47 : 1995 (2) CTC 582 wherein this Court has referred to earlier decision of this Court in 1994 2 LW 622 . In these decisions also, it has been held that the Rent Controller cannot adjudicate a civil dispute between the landlord and the tenant who denies title of the landlord. 10. As per the consistent view taken by this Court and the above observations, I am of the opinion that the first respondent cannot be impleaded in the Rent Control proceedings and he has to choose appropriate forum to establish his right over the premises. Hence, the order of the Appellate Authority challenged before this Court has to be set aside. This Court set aside the orders passed by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. 11. In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed. The first respondent is at liberty to establish his title and right over the premises before the appropriate forum. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.