ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiffs challenging the order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Case NO. 67/2004 whereby, the application filed by the applicant respondent no.1 Tejmal under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC has been allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff chandmal (deceased) filed an application under Section 6 of Rent Control Act before the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara for eviction of premises and recovery of rent against the defendant kailash Chandra for bonafide necessity of the shop situated at Netaji Subhash Market, Bhupalganj, Bhilwara. The defendant submitted his reply to the application denying the necessity of premises and prayed that the suit may be dismissed. 3. During pendency of the suit, the applicant Tejmal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC claiming that he was a necessary party in the suit as the defendant was his tenant and not of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff Chandmal was not the owner of the shop in question. In turn, the petitioner/plaintiffs submitted his reply to the application. It was submitted that the property in question used to be a joint property. After partition of the partnership firm, the said property came in the share of petitioner/plaintiffs by virtue of compromise executed between the applicant Tejmal and Chandmal. Hence, the deceased Chandmal became the owner of property in question. It was also submitted that the applicant was only collecting the rent and merely on the basis of collecting rent, he does not become the owner of the property. 4. Learned Rent Tribunal after considering the facts and the material available on record, allowed the application filed by the applicant Tejmal vide order dated 16.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. D.D. Chitlangi for the petitioner that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. It is argued that since the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff Chandmal for eviction and recovery of dues of rent, the respondent/applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party. It is argued that since the suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff Chandmal for eviction and recovery of dues of rent, the respondent/applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party. Hence, the respondent applicant has no right to compel the plaintiffs to implead him as party respondent in the rent petition. Therefore, the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC ought to have been rejected by the learned Rent Tribunal. So, the impugned order dated 16.01.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of smt. Shakuntala Devi & anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal & Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur reported in 2011 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 292 and Ramgopal & Ors. Vs. Radheshyam Dan & Ors reported in 2011(4) Civil Court Cases 154 (Raj.) 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent applicant argued that the petitioners have no legal right to initiate any legal proceedings against the respondent tenant before the Rent Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 had earlier preferred eviction petition against the same tenant/respondent no.2 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara regarding same suit premises which was allowed by the Rent Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.11.2013. The petitioners preferred appeal against the said judgment passed by learned Rent Tribunal before the Appellate Rent Tribunal which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2015 and the said judgment has now attained finality. Even the respondent no.2/tenant has admitted in the eviction proceedings that he had paid the rent to the respondent no.1 and that rent receipts were also issued to him by the respondent no.1. So far as the compromise decree dated 28.08.1989 is concerned, the fact of petitioners, Shri Chandmal had fraudulently got executed the said compromise and one Smt. Tara Devi had already filed a suit for partition, declaration & injunction in relation to the said compromise decree. The trial court has granted interim order regarding properties involved in the suit. It is further argued that the petitioners and respondent no.2 being hand in gloves want to take orders from the Tribunal behind the back of respondent no.1. The trial court has granted interim order regarding properties involved in the suit. It is further argued that the petitioners and respondent no.2 being hand in gloves want to take orders from the Tribunal behind the back of respondent no.1. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal after appreciating the facts available on record so also the rent note available on record has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1, therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Laxman & Ors Vs. Shri Raj Kumar & Anr reported in 2015 (CJ (Rent Control) 268. 6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have carefully examined the material available on record. 7. Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court to delete or add parties to a suit at any stage of the proceedings, which reads as under:-- "10 (2) Court may strike out or add parties -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added." 8. The precondition for exercise of powers by a court under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC to add a party to a Suit is (i) the person ought to have been joined; and (ii) the presence of such a party is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The persons who ought to have been joined are necessary parties and the persons whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit are proper parties. 9. The subject suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for eviction and recovery of rent against the respondent no.2. The persons who ought to have been joined are necessary parties and the persons whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit are proper parties. 9. The subject suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for eviction and recovery of rent against the respondent no.2. It is true that in the petition for eviction, the Rent Tribunal is required to determine only the question with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. However, in the present case the respondent no.1 had preferred eviction petition against the same respondent no.2/tenant before the learned Tribunal regarding same suit premises. The said eviction petition filed by the respondent no.1 against the present respondent no.2 was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara vide judgment dated 07.11.2013. The present petitioners even filed an appeal against the said judgment before the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 31.03.2015. Thus, the question of landlord and tenant relationship is also involved as in the present suit, the respondent no.1 has claimed to be the landlord of the tenant occupying the premises. The contention of the petitioners is that the property in question used to be a joint property and after partition of the partnership firm, the said property came in the share of petitioner/plaintiff Chandmal by virtue of compromise executed between the applicant Tejmal and the deceased Chandmal. However, with regard to the said compromise deed, respondent no.3 Smt. Tara Devi has filed a suit which is pending consideration before the court below and interim order has been passed with regard to the property in question. Thus, the question of ownership of the premises and consequently, who is the landlord of the tenant occupying the premises, is a contentious issue between the parties in the suit before the Civil Court. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent no.1/ applicant is a proper party for the complete & effective adjudication of the controversy involved regarding the landlord & tenant relationship with regard to the shop in question. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent no.1/ applicant is a proper party for the complete & effective adjudication of the controversy involved regarding the landlord & tenant relationship with regard to the shop in question. 10. Moreover, in 'Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil' reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 , with regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49 as under :- "49. (m)... The power of interference under [Article 227] is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." 11. It was also held that: "49. (c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it." 12. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Case No. 67/2004. The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 13. Stay petition also stands dismissed.