JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is directed against order dated 27.8.18 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner for impleading him as party respondent in the petition filed by the respondent-landlord against the tenant, the second respondent, has been dismissed. 2. Precisely, the case set out by the petitioner was that he is occupying the shop as owner on the strength of registered sale deed and the respondent-tenant has denied the factum of the shop being taken on rent from the father of the respondent/landlord and thus, his rights are likely to be affected by decision of the rent petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there exists a serious dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-landlord regarding the ownership of the property in question. The respondent-tenant has denied landlord and tenant relationship and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to implead the petitioner as party respondent in the petition. Learned counsel submitted that in the earlier petition filed, the respondent-landlord had impleaded the petitioner herein as party respondent and therefore, the factum of petitioner being necessary party is not otherwise disputed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the suit filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction of the tenant, the Rent Tribunal is not required to examine the title of the landlord over the disputed property rather, the existence of landlord and tenant relationship is required to be examined and obviously, if the respondent/landlord fails to establish the relationship as aforesaid, the petition will fail. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already been declared owner of the property by way of compromise decree passed in suit for partition, which is not questioned by the petitioner herein and thus, the petitioner cannot claim any right whatsoever over the property in question. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, pursuant to the compromise decree dated 28.8.89 passed in suit for partition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner herein and others, the disputed property fell in the share of the first respondent. 5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, pursuant to the compromise decree dated 28.8.89 passed in suit for partition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner herein and others, the disputed property fell in the share of the first respondent. It is true that the legality of the compromise decree is questioned by Smt. Tara Devi, the sister of the petitioner and the first respondent, but the fact remains that the suit was decreed in view of the compromise arrived at inter alia the petitioner and the first respondent and the petitioner has not questioned the legality of the compromise decree. There is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner is the owner of the disputed property. Moreover, in the suit for eviction preferred by the landlord against the tenant under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the question of title over the property is not required to be gone into by the Rent Tribunal and only the issue with regard to landlord and tenant relationship, if raised, is required to be determined and thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner who is neither necessary nor proper party, cannot be permitted to inter meddle in the matter. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara does not warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.