JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed laying challenge to the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh whereby two applications filed by the petitioner had been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-tenant under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. During the course of trial, the Court had framed the following issues: Þ1- vk;k oknh o izfroknh ds e/; fooknxzLr nqdku ds laca/k esa ekfyd o fdjk;snkj ds lac/ak gSaA & oknh 2- vk;k oknh mDr fdjk;snkjh ds tfj;s fof/kxr uksfVl vUrxZr /kkjk 106 lEifr vUrj.k vf/kfu;e lekIr djus o dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA & oknh 3- vk;k oknh izfroknh dks mDr nqdku dks csn[ky djus rd dk izfroknh ls cdk;k fdjk;k o vU; dkyhu ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA & oknhÞ 3. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-tenant filed two applications dated 20.10.2016; one under Order 14, Rule 5 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) for framing of additional issues and another application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC of the even date, seeking impleadment of Gavari Devi, sister of the plaintiff. By way of the order impugned, learned Trial Court has rejected both the applications inter alia observing that the issue No.2, already framed by the Court takes care of the issues proposed in the application and the stand of the defendants in relation to the payment of monthly rent. As regards the application seeking impleadment of Gavari Devi, the Court below has rejected the same inter alia observing that Gevari Devi even if assumed to be a rent collector, is not required to be impleaded as a party in the suit proceedings. 4. Mr. Sushil Solanki, counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of issues and contended that in view of the specific pleadings of the defendant that the rent of the subject shop was Rs.18,000/- per annum, the necessary issue as suggested by the plaintiff ought to have been framed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and the issues already framed by the Court below. 6. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and the issues already framed by the Court below. 6. In considered view of this Court, the issue No.2 reproduced herein above is exhaustive and takes care of the concern shown by the petitioner, as such, the learned Court below has committed no error of law in rejecting the petitioner’s application for framing of the additional issue. 7. Coming to the challenge to the order in relation to impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of Gaveri Devi, sister of the plaintiff, suffice it to observe that even going through the petitioner’s own contention, he used to pay the rent to Gaveri Devi, whereas the factum of plaintiff being landlord has not been disputed. It is a different matter that the petitioner-tenant had challenged the will itself to be forged. 8. Looking to the controversy involved, more particularly that the suit in question has been filed for eviction of tenant under the provision of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenant cannot question the ownership or status of the landlord. Merely because at some instances, he has paid rent to Gavari Devi, her impleadment is neither warranted nor necessary. 9. On the previous occasion when the matter was listed before this Court on 13.04.2017, this Court had allowed a week’s time to the counsel for the petitioner to show any law which lays down that the rent collector is required to be impleaded as party in a suit for eviction. 10. Today when the matter was argued, Mr. Sushil Solanki was not able to show any such law. 11. In considered opinion of this Court, rent collector is simply an agent of the landlord and in the presence of landlord, he is not required to be rather cannot be impleaded as a party. More so, by way of the application under consideration, the petitioner has sought impleadment of Gaveri Devi as a defendant in the present suit proceedings. Said application is frivolous and her impleadment as defendant at the instance of the defendant is inconceivable and impermissible. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Trial Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is therefore, dismissed summarily.