JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. An eviction petition was filed by the respondent Kumawat Samaj, Rajsamand ('Samaj') against Sagan Kshetra Vikas Samiti, Rajsamand ('Samiti'), wherein one Narayan Das S/o. Mangidas was later on impleaded as party before the Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand. 3. After the parties led evidence, the Rent Tribunal, inter alia, came to the conclusion that the premises were required reasonably and bona fidely by the Samaj the suit premises were sublet by the Samiti to Narayan Das and based on its findings ordered eviction. 4. During consideration of the issue pertaining to subletting, the Rent Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the disputed premises were comprised in Aaraji No. 1670, which was recorded in the name of Samaj and not in Aaraji No. 1649, regarding which, it was claimed by Narayan Das S/o. Mangidas that he has applied for regularization. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and recovery certificate issued by the Rent Tribunal, Narayan Das filed an appeal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. 6. During pendency of the appeal, the present application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC came to be filed by the petitioner Narayan Das, inter alia, claiming that the land comprised in Aaraji No. 1670 belonged to his predecessor Laxman Das Khaki, the Samaj fraudulently got mutation No. 124 in its name and got the same indicated in its name, against which, appeal has been filed before the competent Revenue Court, which was still pending. It was alleged that the Samaj and respondents have colluded and appeal has been filed only with a view to raise false defence. It was also claimed that Samaj was never in possession of the premises and is not entitled to get the possession and, therefore, the petitioner be impleaded as party and be heard in the matter. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings earlier and as soon as he came to know, the application has been moved without any further loss of time. 7. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings earlier and as soon as he came to know, the application has been moved without any further loss of time. 7. Reply to the application was filed by the Samaj and it was indicated that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party; allegations about the collusion between sub-tenant and the petitioner were made and it was prayed that the application was liable to be dismissed. 8. The Appellate Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the dispute pertains to landlord and tenant and the ownership was not to be determined in the appeal and no issue pertaining to the revenue record was to be determined. The applicant was stranger and was not a necessary or proper party and, consequently, dismissed the application. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised by the petitioner pertaining to the mutation standing in the name of Samaj is under consideration before the concerned Revenue Courts and the present proceedings have been initiated by the Samaj claiming itself to be the owner of the suit premises and as there is a dispute between the petitioner and the Samaj regarding the ownership of the suit premises, the petitioner is a necessary party and in his absence, the dispute raised, cannot be settled by the Appellate Rent Tribunal and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Vehemently opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to be impleaded as a party in the present litigation, the present litigation pertains to the eviction of the tenant from the suit premises, which was let out to the Samiti, which in turn sublet it to Narayan Das S/o. Mangidas. The impleadment of the petitioner would change the nature of the proceedings and the same would be converted into a title proceedings between the petitioner and the respondents, which is wholly beyond the scope the present proceedings. The impleadment of the petitioner would change the nature of the proceedings and the same would be converted into a title proceedings between the petitioner and the respondents, which is wholly beyond the scope the present proceedings. It was submitted that the present application is a last ditch effort on part of the sub-tenant-appellant Narayan Das S/o. Mangidas, inasmuch as, by the impugned order, two applications were decided, one was filed by the said sub-tenant Narayan Das seeking appointment of Local Commissioner and another by the petitioner and both the applications were rejected. Earlier, the rejection of application for appointment of Commissioner was challenged by the subtenant Narayan Das by filing writ petition, which was rejected by this Court and now the present petitioner has challenged the rejection of the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC before this Court and incidentally both the writ petitions, one by the subtenant and another by the present petitioner have been filed by the same counsel, which cannot be a mere coincidence. Therefore, in view of the tactics adopted by the petitioner/subtenant, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 12. From the record, it is apparent that the petition seeking eviction of the tenant Samiti and sub-tenant Naryan Das S/o. Mangidas was filed by the Samaj in the year 2006, which petition was accepted by the Rent Tribunal on 14.12.2009. It is also apparent from the material placed on record that vide mutation No. 124 dated 05.01.1959, the suit premises comprised in Aaraji No. 1670 stands in the name of the Samaj. Against which, an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has been filed by the petitioner on 24.11.1997, which proceedings are pending consideration before the Revenue Courts. 13. The provisions of Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC provides for impleadment at any stage of proceedings either upon or without the application of either parties, if the court comes to the conclusion that presence of such a person before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court to factually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 14. 14. In the present case, admittedly, the dispute pertains to eviction of the tenant/sub-tenant from the suit premises and a recovery certificate in this regard had already been issued by the Rent Tribunal, against which the present appeal is pending consideration before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. The dispute by way of filing the present application, which is sought to be raised by the petitioner pertains to the ownership/title of the suit premises as to whether it is the Samaj or the petitioner, who is the right or title-holder of the suit premises. 15. Apparently, the said aspect is totally alien to the proceedings between the landlord and tenant. The effect of impleading of the present petitioner in the proceedings before the Appellate Rent Tribunal would be to start a fresh independent trial before the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding the issue of ownership of the suit premises, inasmuch as, the petitioner is concerned, he has hardly anything to say so far as eviction of the tenant/sub-tenant is concerned. Therefore, the fundamental principle for impleadment of party regarding presence of a intending party to factually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the question involved in the suit is essentially missing in the present case. 16. So far as the dispute pending between the petitioner and the Samaj before the Revenue Courts is concerned, all the consequence flowing from the decision to be made by the Revenue Court would naturally follow and the decision of the present proceedings cannot have any implication on the pending proceedings before the Revenue Court. 17. There appears to be some substance in the allegations made by learned counsel for the respondents about collusion between Narayan Das S/o. Mangidas, the sub-tenant and the petitioner, inasmuch as, the application before the Appellate Rent Tribunal was not opposed by the said Narayan Das, who is appellant before the Rent Tribunal and interestingly enough the said Narayan Das, who is appellant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, has not even been impleaded as a party to the present writ petition and over and above the Board of Revenue has been impleaded as a party in the writ petition and a relief has been sought in the writ petition seeking decision of the pending revision application by the Board of Revenue expeditiously. 18. 18. Besides the fact that in the present petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the proceedings pending before two different forums cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition, the non-impleadment of Narayan Das S/o. Mangidas, the appellant before the Appellate Rent Tribunal cannot be without any reason, the reason not forthcoming, gives credence to the allegations made by the respondents. 19. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that in the present proceedings before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party as his presence is not necessary for adjudicating upon and settling all the questions involved in the appeal. 20. In view of the above, there is no substance in the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.