ORDER : 1. This petition is directed against order dated 12.12.15 of the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner whereby an application preferred by the petitioner seeking rejection of the Rent Petition stands dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the petitioner herein preferred a petition against one Shri Sikaner Khan seeking eviction from a commercial premises inter alia on the ground of non user of the premises and the premises being in dilapidated condition not fit for human habitation. The petition preferred by the petitioner stands allowed by Rent Tribunal vide order dated 7.1.15. In the said petition, the respondent herein had filed an application for impleading him as party respondent, claiming himself to be the tenant in occupation of the premises. The application was rejected by the Rent Tribunal. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed a petition against the petitioner herein under Section 18 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short “the Act”) seeking directions for repairing of the roof and floor of the premises in question alleged to be in his occupation as tenant. The petition is being contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto wherein the landlord and tenant relationship has been categorically denied. The specific stand of the petitioner herein is that the premises in question is occupied by Sikander Khan as tenant and not the petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the petition, the petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking eviction of Sikander Khan from the premises in question stands allowed as aforesaid and therefore, the petitioner preferred an application before the Rent Tribunal for rejection of the present petition filed by the respondent on the ground that the petition preferred by her against Sikaner Khan being allowed by the Rent Tribunal, the petition filed by the respondent herein has rendered redundant. The application stands rejected by the Rent Tribunal by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the actual tenant Shri Sikaner Khan is already directed to be evicted from the premises in question, however, the respondent herein in connivance with Sikaner Khan, wants to still continue with the possession over the shop and therefore, he has moved application seeking directions to get the repairs done. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the actual tenant Shri Sikaner Khan is already directed to be evicted from the premises in question, however, the respondent herein in connivance with Sikaner Khan, wants to still continue with the possession over the shop and therefore, he has moved application seeking directions to get the repairs done. Learned counsel submitted that an application filed by the respondent before the Rent Tribunal in the petition filed by the petitioner against Sikaner Khan, for impleading him as party respondent in the matter stood rejected by the Rent Tribunal by a detailed order, which has attained finality and therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain the present petition before the Rent Tribunal and the same was liable to be rejected on this count alone. 6. Indisputably, in the petition filed by the petitioner against Sikander Khan for eviction from the premises in question, the respondent had preferred an application seeking impleadment as party respondent, which stood rejected by the Rent Tribunal observing that the plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to contest against the person against whom he does not wish to contest and thus, the question with regard to the existence of the landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not gone into by the Tribunal while deciding the application preferred on behalf of the respondent for impleading him as party to the proceedings. It is true that the petition filed by the petitioner against Sikander Khan seeking his eviction from the premises stands allowed by the Rent Tribunal but then, on only that account the respondent who claims himself to be the tenant of the petitioner in the premises in question, cannot be non suited. 7. It is to be noticed that in the instant petition, the evidence of the parties stands concluded and the matter is posted for final arguments and therefore, at this stage, the application preferred by the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint has rightly been rejected by the Rent Tribunal. Obviously, all questions including the question regarding the maintainability of the present petition filed on behalf of the respondent are open to be considered by the Rent Tribunal while finally deciding the petition in accordance with law. Obviously, all questions including the question regarding the maintainability of the present petition filed on behalf of the respondent are open to be considered by the Rent Tribunal while finally deciding the petition in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this court, the Rent Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the observations as above.