JUDGMENT Neeraj Tiwari, J. Mr. Harshvardhan Gupta, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 & 3, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is landlord of the shop in question and the said shop was let out to opposite no.1. Later on, plaintiff-petitioner has filed Suit No.5 of 2021 against the defendant-opposite party upon which written submission has also been filed by defendant-opposite party no.1 in which he has accepted the relation of landlord and tenant. Now at this stage, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 has filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the applicant as defendant nos. 2 & 3 on the ground that they are actual owner of the landlord and in the plaint, plaintiff has wrongly shown himself to be as owner, which was allowed. He next submitted that in the scc suit only relationship of landlord and tenant has to be decided and it has nothing to do with ownership, therefore, defendant nos. 2 & 3 are not the necessary party and have nothing to do with tenancy. Therefore, application has wrongly been allowed. 4. Mr. Harshvardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 has opposed and submitted that in the plaint, plaintiff is showing himself to be owner of shop in question not the landlord, therefore, application was filed and it was rightly allowed. 5. Mr. Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the revisionist in his rejoinder argument submitted that in the SCC suit only landlord and tenant relationship has to be decided and not a title. He also submitted that plaintiff in the proceedings being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead any third party to proceedings unless the third party proves that he is necessary party. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeet Kaur and Another v. Bala Ji Builders and 9 others reported in 2019 (2) ARC 608. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeet Kaur and Another v. Bala Ji Builders and 9 others reported in 2019 (2) ARC 608. He lastly submitted that Court may observe that in case any finding made by the Court about the tenant and landlord relationship that shall not effect the title of Nagar Palika Parishad, if any, and it is always open for them to file suit for eviction. 6. I have considered the rival submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparently clear that no one can force to plaintiff to implead anyone as necessary party. So far as present case is concerned, power of sub letting is not disputed. Therefore, opposite party nos. 1 & 2 are not the necessary party. Even otherwise, proceedings being dominus litis, plaintiff cannot force to implead the defendant as third party unless proves that he is necessary party. This Court is also of the firm view in the matter of Jeet Kaur (supra). 7. Accordingly, under such facts of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned order dated 10.4.2023 is hereby quashed and revision is allowed. No order as to costs. 8. Needless to say that any observation made by the Court about the landlord and tenant relationship shall not effect the title of Nagar Palika Parishad, if any, over the shop in question and it is always open for them to get the shop vacated strictly in accordance with law from the plaintiff.