ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 20.4.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby in the suit filed by the petitioner application filed by the landlord under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. has been accepted. 2. The petitioner filed proceedings before the Rent Tribunal. The Rent Tribunal, after hearing the parties i.e. landlord and Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited ('JVVNL'), passed injunction for grant of electricity connection to the petitioner in accordance with law as the electricity connection, which was already existing in the name of landlord was disconnected on the application of the landlord. 3. Where after, the petitioner was granted electricity connection and when the same was disconnected, the present suit before the Civil Court by impleading only JVVNL was filed seeking injunction against the said JVVNL. In the suit, the landlord filed an application seeking impleadment as party. 4. The application was opposed by the petitioner. 5. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the presence of said landlord was necessary to the suit and allowed the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit, the petitioner has only sought relief qua the JVVNL and landlord was not at all necessary party as the electricity connection only stood in petitioner's name and same was wrongly disconnected and therefore, the presence of the landlord was not necessary. 7. It was also submitted that if the landlord is impleaded as party, in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, the trial court would loose its jurisdiction and on that count also, the landlord could not be impleaded as party. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. The proceedings were initiated before the Rent Tribunal for restoration of amenities and order was passed. Any consequential order normally should have been challenged in the pending proceedings, however, the petitioner chose to initiate a fresh suit and that also without impleading the landlord and the allegations made in the plaint were against the landlord as well and therefore, in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the landlord is not be a necessary party to the said suit filed by the petitioner. If the impleadment of the landlord would result in the trial court loosing the jurisdiction, it is upto the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings in this regard. 10. No interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.