JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This petition is directed against order dated 19.7.19 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for impleading him as party respondent in the petition filed by the first respondent seeking eviction of the second respondent from the rented premises, has been rejected. 2. The first respondent-Shiv Shanker, the landlord, filed a petition seeking eviction against the second respondent-Chandra Kumar and the petitioner herein. The first respondent is contesting the petition by filing a reply thereto. 3. The notice issued to the second respondent was received unserved with endorsement that he resides at Mumbai. On the application preferred on behalf of the respondent-landlord, the name of the petitioner herein was deleted from the array of the respondents vide order dated 5.8.10. 4. The matter is posted before the Rent Tribunal for evidence of the respondent-tenant. At this stage, after a lapse of about 9 years, the petitioner preferred an application for impleading him as party respondent, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the first instance, the respondent-landlord himself impleaded the petitioner as party to the petition. It is submitted that on account of severe accident occurred in the year 2016, now, the petitioner is looking after the business and thus, the application could not have been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal solely on the ground that it has been filed belatedly. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is well settled that the plaintiff being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to contest against the person he does not want to contest. It appears that the name of the petitioner herein, who was initially impleaded as party, was got deleted by the first respondent on revelation that the petitioner herein is not engaged in business with his father and was residing at Mumbai, which is not even disputed inasmuch as, the petitioner has averred that he has started looking after the business only in 2016 as his father has met with an accident and suffered fracture. Obviously, deletion of the name of the petitioner herein from the array of the respondents is at the risk and peril of the first respondent. Obviously, deletion of the name of the petitioner herein from the array of the respondents is at the risk and peril of the first respondent. But, if the premises was let out by the first respondent to the second respondent then, the petitioner herein cannot claim impleadment as party respondent in the matter solely on the ground that on account of the inability of his father, he has entered into business carrying on by his father. 8. Moreover, the petitioner's father being party to the proceedings, the factum of deletion of the petitioner as party respondent to the proceedings was very much known to the petitioner and nothing prevented him to make an appropriate application in this regard with utmost expedition. 9. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for impleadment, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.