JUDGMENT 1. - Both the writ petitions arise in identical background and are thus being decided by this common order. SBCWP No.316/2012 is the leading case for reference to the necessary facts. 2. These petitions have been filed against two similar orders dated 19.12.2011, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.) No.2, Beawar, District Ajmer in Civil Suit Nos.1/2009 and 2/2009 whereby the respondent Nos.4 to 13 claiming to be the Chairman and Members of the Ganeshji Maharaj Trust, Surajpol Gate, Beawar have been impleaded as co-plaintiffs in suits for eviction laid by the petitioner against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The facts of the leading case are that the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') filed a suit against non-petitioner Nos.1 to 3 (hereinafter 'the defendants') for their ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.) NO.2, Beawar, District Ajmer. It was stated by the plaintiff that vide rent note dated 26.02.1991, he let out the suit property to the defendants, who had paid rent upto 30.11.2005 but thereafter despite repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendants had defaulted on the payment of rent. It was stated that in these circumstances, a notice dated 22.04.2008 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1882') was sent by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of the defendants and requiring them to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property and also remit arrears of rent. Failure to comply with the notice dated 22.04.2008 in respect both of termination of tenancy of the defendants and to pay arrears of rent entailed the filing of the suit for eviction etc. as aforesaid. 4. The defendants filed written statements to the plaint and admitted the factum of tenancy of the plaintiff, but denied other averments in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit for eviction. Issues were framed and evidence of the plaintiff was recorded. The matter was ripe for taking on record the defence evidence. 5. At this stage, the non-petitioner Nos.4 to 13 (hereinafter 'the applicants') moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the pending suit on 21.12.2010 fundamentally on the ground that the suit property belonged to the Ganeshji Maharaj Trust of which they were Chairman and Members respectively. The matter was ripe for taking on record the defence evidence. 5. At this stage, the non-petitioner Nos.4 to 13 (hereinafter 'the applicants') moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the pending suit on 21.12.2010 fundamentally on the ground that the suit property belonged to the Ganeshji Maharaj Trust of which they were Chairman and Members respectively. It was stated that the respondents thus had interest in the property of the Trust as its trustees and hence be impleaded. On notice, the plaintiff filed reply to the application for impleadment stating that the suit before the court was one of eviction filed by the landlord against the tenants and in this view of the matter, the application for impleadment seeking to agitate a purported title of the tenanted property ought to be dismissed. It was stated that even otherwise in the revenue records, the tenanted property was recorded in the name of Ganesh Giri Baba Bajarbattu, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the application for impleadment appeared to be in collusion with the defendants/tenants with the intent of making the proceedings before the trial court complex and thus delay the adjudication of the plaintiff's eviction petition. On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the application for impleadment be dismissed. 6. The trial court however even while admitting that the question of title of the applicants over the tenanted property in issue could not be addressed in the suit for eviction, yet for the purported interest of the protection of the tenanted property claimed by the Ganeshji Maharaj Trust, allowed the applicants to be impleaded as co-plaintiff in the suit laid by the plaintiff against the defendants. 7. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that it is trite that in a suit for eviction between a landlord and a tenant, the question of title cannot be gone into. It has been submitted that the tenanted property in issue did not in any event belong to Ganeshji Maharaj Trust of which the applicants claimed to be Chairman and Members. Counsel submits that however if at all the said trust had any rightful claim or interest in the tenanted property in issue, it was free to take its own proceedings as available in law and not intercede in the suit for eviction laid by the plaintiff against the defendants. Counsel submits that however if at all the said trust had any rightful claim or interest in the tenanted property in issue, it was free to take its own proceedings as available in law and not intercede in the suit for eviction laid by the plaintiff against the defendants. Counsel submits that oddly the trial court even while admitting to the legal position as aforesaid has arbitrarily in excess of its jurisdiction on a vague notion of justice contrary to the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC proceeded to implead the applicants as party to the plaintiff's suit for eviction and more oddly as co-plaintiffs. It is submitted that in a suit for eviction by the landlord against the tenant in view of the location of the property, provisions of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 do not apply and it is mandatory that a notice under Section 106 of the Act of 1882 be issued by the landlord to the tenant terminating the tenancy before laying a suit for eviction. It is submitted that admittedly no such notice had emanated from the applicants to the defendants and on this count alone the case of the applicants in suit as putative co-plaintiffs against the defendants would be a non-starter even assuming that they at all had a right to be impleaded as party. 8. Counsel for the applicants, now respondent No.4 to 13 before this Court, has submitted that the tenanted property in issue in respect of which eviction proceedings have been taken by the plaintiff against the defendants are owned by Ganeshji Maharaj Trust and the Chairman and Members of the said trust are entitled to be impleaded as party in the suit for eviction laid by the plaintiff. He submits that the plaintiff and the defendants are in collusion to somehow obtain the tenanted property in issue for the personal use of the plaintiff to the exclusion of ownership and possession of Ganeshji Maharaj Trust. It is submitted that FIR No.391/2006 at Police Station Beawar had been registered against the plaintiff under Section 380 IPC and the plaintiff has been challaned therein. It is submitted that FIR No.391/2006 at Police Station Beawar had been registered against the plaintiff under Section 380 IPC and the plaintiff has been challaned therein. It is further submitted that tenanted property in issue is recorded in the Schedule of properties of Ganeshji Maharaj Trust registered under the provision of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and consequently, the applicants had an obvious interest in the suit for eviction laid by the plaintiff relating to the property of Ganeshji Maharaj Trust. It is submitted that therefore, the trial court has committed no error of jurisdiction or illegality in impleading them as co-plaintiffs in the suit. 9. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and the applicants, before this Court the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 13 respectively. 10. In my considered view, the legal position with regard to impleadment of a party with reference to Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is absolutely clear. The plaintiff is the dominus litus and it is for him to seek the defendants against whom, he needs to litigate and the prayers to be made there against before a competent court. In the event, the plaintiff does not implead a necessary party, it is always on his own peril. The law is well settled that a suit for eviction is a matter between the landlord and the tenant and issues of title are quite irrelevant in such suits. This Court in the case of Omprakash v. Gajanand & Ors. [RLW 2000 (2) Raj. 1219] has held that the issue of ownership of the tenanted premises cannot be a subject matter of tenancy dispute and in a suit for eviction laid by the landlord against the tenant, a third person claiming to be owner or co-owner of the property cannot be permitted to be arrayed as party. 11. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Talib Hussain v. Peer Azhar Hussain & Ors., AIR 1998 Rajasthan 150 and it has been held that in a suit for eviction of the tenant, third party disputing the landlord's title of the suit property cannot be arrayed as party in the suit for eviction whereunder investigating of title is not warranted in law. On a specific query to the counsel for the applicants as to whether Ganeshji Maharaj Trust had any relationship as landlord with the defendants, no definitive reply was preferred. On the contrary it is an admitted fact that the rent deed is one not between Ganeshji Maharaj Trust and the defendants (tenants), but between one Itwar Giri and the defendants (tenants). The plaintiff has set up his case for eviction as successor of Itwar Giri. Apart from the legal position as enunciated above with regard to impleadment of a third party in a suit for eviction where questions of title would entail investigations far beyond the scope of a suit originally laid, I am of the view that in the event the applicants were not to be impleaded as party in the suit for eviction laid by the plaintiff against the defendants, no prejudice would be caused to them. The applicants are always free to take their remedy as available in law with regard to claiming ownership of the tenanted property in issue. 12. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders both dated 19.12.2011 are quashed and set aside. Stay applications need no address in view of the writ petitions being allowed.Petition allowed. *******