ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant'), against the order dated 26.2.2018 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 21 (3)(H) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2001') readwith Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading him as a party respondent in the Original Application filed by the non-petitioner- original applicant-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'original applicant') has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that original applicant filed an original application against the respondent-non applicants-tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the non applicant') under Sections 7, 9 and 18 of the Act of 2001. The non applicant filed the reply to the said original application. One Dr. Rahul filed an application under Section 21 (3)(H) of the Act of 2001 for impleading him as a party to the suit on the ground that the property in question is situated in Khasra No. 742 (present Khasra No. 2896), which is located in front of General Hospital, Karauli and the Khatedari has been registered in the name of Mandir Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan according to the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue. The shop in question was taken on rent by Dr. Rahul from the Poojari of Mandir Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan Ji and he was stated to be in possession of the tenanted shop. The Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 1.6.2017 allowed the application and impleaded Dr. Rahul as party respondent no.2 in the original application. Subsequently Mandir Murti Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan through its next friend Roop Narayan filed an application under Section 21(3)(H) of the Act of 2001 readwith Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for its impleadment in the original application. The original applicant filed a reply thereto. After hearing the arguments, the Rent Tribunal vide its order dated 26.2.2018 dismissed the said application. 3. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the tenanted shop for which the original application was filed, was taken on rent by Dr. Rahul from Hanuman, Poojari of Mandir Murti Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan, therefore, Mandir Murti Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan is a necessary and proper party in the original application. 3. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the tenanted shop for which the original application was filed, was taken on rent by Dr. Rahul from Hanuman, Poojari of Mandir Murti Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan, therefore, Mandir Murti Bhagwan Shri Suraj Narayan is a necessary and proper party in the original application. He has further submitted that in an eviction suit under the Rent Act, question of title can be considered by the court as an incidental question. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Nooman & Ors. Versus Md. Jabed Alam & Ors. reported in 2010 SAR (Civil) 880; in the case of Shamim Akhtar Versus Iqbal Ahmad and Another reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 123; and the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman & Ors. Versus Shri Raj Kumar & Anr. reported in 2015 CJ (Rent Control) 268. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original application was filed under the provisions of the Act of 2001, wherein the question of title of third party cannot be decided. Only the dispute with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant can be adjudicated in the original application. He has further submitted that Dr. Rahul Goyal was impleaded as a party only for the reason that he was in possession of the tenanted shop and on his eviction, the possession of the shop was claimed by the original applicant. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments- Kanaklata Das and Others Versus Naba Kumar Das & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 352 E. Parashuraman (Dead) by Lrs. Versus V. Doraiswamy (Dead) by LR reported in (2006) 1 Supreme court Cases 658 Om Prakash Versus Kalyan Prasad & Ors. 2011 (4) WLC (Raj.) 503. Heard. Considered. 6. In the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. (supra), in para 11 Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: '11.1. First, in an eviction suit filed by the Plain- tiff (Landlord) against the Defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and ten- ant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. First, in an eviction suit filed by the Plain- tiff (Landlord) against the Defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and ten- ant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. 11.2. Second, the landlord (Plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and second, the ground(s) on which the Plaintiff- landlord has sought Defendant's-tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, eviction suit succeeds. 11.3. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the land- lord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. 11.4. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails.' 7. In the case of E. Parashuraman (supra), in para 16, it was held-: 'In our view there was no extinguishment of title of the respondent, even though there may be some dispute about it with the Corporation. It is well settled that entries in the revenue record may, at times, raise a presumption, but do not conclusively confer title.' 8. In the case of Om Prakash Versus Kalyan Prasad & Ors. (supra), it was observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of E. Parshuram versus V. Doraiswamy reported in (2006) 1 SCC 658 that- '.. at the instance of landlord against tenant, a landlord need not be the owner of the premises, therefore, the question whether or not the land- lord had failed to inherit absolute title of the suit premises, was irrelevant.' 9. at the instance of landlord against tenant, a landlord need not be the owner of the premises, therefore, the question whether or not the land- lord had failed to inherit absolute title of the suit premises, was irrelevant.' 9. On the Contrary, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Nooman & Ors. Versus Md. Jabed Alam & Ors.(supra) relied on by the counsel for the applicant does not apply in the instant case for the reason that in that case issue relating to the plaintiff's claim of title had already been framed, whereas in the present case no issue has been framed on the question of title. 10. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamim Akhtar Versus Iqbal Ahmad & Anr. (supra) also does not apply in the instant case case because in that case, the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied, whereas in the instant case, no such denial is there. 11. The judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman & Ors. Versus Shri Raj Kumar & Anr. reported in 2015 CJ (Rent Control) also does not hold the field for the reason that the question in regard to ownership of premises was a contentious question between the parties in the civil suit, which is not the situation here in this case. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that in the eviction matters, third party title cannot be decided. 13. So far as the impleadment of Dr. Rahul Goyal was concerned, he was impleaded on the ground that he was in possession of the shop, eviction of which was sought. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was not found to be a proper and necessary party and he was not impleaded as a party respondent in the original application. 14. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 26.2.2018. 15. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. 14. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Rent Tribunal in its order dated 26.2.2018. 15. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this writ petition and the same being bereft of any merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 17. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, ex-parte stay order dated 11.4.2018 is vacated and all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.