JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) quash the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure7) passed by the Learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara in Rent Application No.50/2008; and (ii) the impleadment application filed by the petitioner Under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. dated 29.05.2019 (Annex.5) may be allowed with costs in toto; and (iii) any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case be granted in favour of the petitioner; and (iv) Cost of the writ petition kindly ordered to be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1-landlord (since deceased, represented through his LRs) filed an eviction petition under Section 9 (a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara against the respondent no.2-tenant. 2.1. During pendency of the aforesaid eviction petition, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC for being impleaded as party in the said eviction petition. The learned Rent Tribunal, vide order dated 27.08.2018, rejected the said application; aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing S.B.C.W.P. No.1295/2019 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of on 25.01.2019, while giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application. 2.2. The petitioner again filed an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) before the learned Rent Tribunal in aforementioned eviction petition, and stated that earlier the eviction petition was filed by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2, wherein the petitioner filed an impleadment application and the same was allowed on 27.01.2010 and the petitioner was impleaded as party by the learned Rent Tribunal. Therefore, in the eviction petition in question also, the petitioner is a necessary party. The learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, rejected the said impleadment application of the petitioner. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Therefore, in the eviction petition in question also, the petitioner is a necessary party. The learned Rent Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, rejected the said impleadment application of the petitioner. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the respondent no.1 filed an eviction petition against the respondent no.2 and in the said petition, the petitioner filed an impleadment application, which was allowed by the learned Rent Tribunal, therefore, in the subsequent eviction petition also, the petitioner is a necessary party. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that once the petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as in the earlier eviction petition between the same parties, then in present eviction petition also, the petitioner is a necessary party for fair and effective adjudication of the petition in question. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that a civil suit for partition regarding the property in question is also pending and the petitioner is a party in the said civil suit. 3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a necessary party as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for proper and effective adjudication of the eviction petition in question, but the learned Court below without considering the said vital aspect, rejected the impleadment application of the petitioner, vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2023, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the eviction petition was filed pertaining to another shop rented out to one Kailash Chandra Kalya, wherein the petitioner filed an impleadment application before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, the learned Rent Tribunal rejected the said application; aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing S.B.C.W.P. No.9269/2022 before this Ho’ble Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.10.2013. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is justified in the eye of law. 4.1. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Tribunal is justified in the eye of law. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1 filed a suit before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara under Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and the same was decided on the basis of compromise decree; the rented the premises came under the share of the respondent no.1, and thus, there was no question of impleadment of the present petitioner in the case. 4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Murli Manohar Arora & Ors Vs Parmeshwari Devi & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No 2134 of 2014, decided on 03.07.2015); Relevant portion of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “Besides the above fact, in a suit based on landlord-tenant relationship, the claim of a co-parceners for being impleaded as a parties to the suit, wherein there is no claim that the coparceners had let out the property to the tenant, it cannot be said that such a co-parcener would be a necessary party to the suit. In case, the petitioners, whose suit for partition is pending, is impleaded as parties to the present proceedings, the same is likely to change the scope of the suit and on that count also the impleadment is not necessary”. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the respondent no.1 filed an eviction petition before the learned Rent Tribunal against the respondent no.2. During pendency of the said eviction petition, the petitioner preferred an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC therein, which was rejected vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Court below. 7. This Court, at this juncture, considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs Naba Kumar Das & Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 352 , as hereunder: “5. In the Ejectment Suit, Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code praying therein that he may be allowed to become the co-Plaintiff along with the Appellants. Vs Naba Kumar Das & Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 352 , as hereunder: “5. In the Ejectment Suit, Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code praying therein that he may be allowed to become the co-Plaintiff along with the Appellants. Respondent No. 1 sought his impleadment alleging that he is a member of the Appellants' family and being so, has a right, title and interest not only in the suit premises but also in other family properties as one of the co-owners. It is essentially on these allegations and with a view to protect his interest in the suit premises, Respondent No. 1 sought his impleadment in the suit. 11. There are some well-settled principles of law on the question involved in this appeal, which need to be taken into consideration while deciding the question arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra. 12. First, in an eviction suit filed by the Plaintiff (Landlord) against the Defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 landlord 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. 16. 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. (See-Dr. 16. 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. (See-Dr. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, 1995(6) SCC 580 ). 17. Fourth, the Plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a Plaintiff or the Defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. 18. In other words, no person can compel the Plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-Plaintiff or Defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. (See-Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee and Anr., 2005(8) SCC 140 ) 19. Fifth, a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. (See-Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr. AIR 1963 786) 20. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See-Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and Ors. v. M. Chinniyan and Anr., 2016(3) SCC 296 ). 22. In our considered opinion, Respondent No. 1, who claims to be the co-sharer or/and co-owner with the Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) of the suit property is neither a necessary and nor a proper party in the eviction suit of the Appellants against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In other words, such eviction suit can be decreed or dismissed on merits even without the impleadment of Respondent No. 1. 23. 2 to 5. In other words, such eviction suit can be decreed or dismissed on merits even without the impleadment of Respondent No. 1. 23. In the eviction suit, the question of title or the extent of the shares held by the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 against each other in the suit premises cannot be decided and nor can be made the subject matter for its determination. 8. This Court further considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the case Manish Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7131/2022, decided on 16.05.2023) passed by this Hon’ble Court; and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Suresh & Ors. Vs. Amarlal & Ors. (Writ Petition (WP) No. 3681 of 2022, decided on 27.03.2023), as hereunder: Manish (Supra) : “9. This Court further observes that the Act of 2001 was enacted with the aim and object, “to provide for control of eviction from, letting of, and rents for, certain premises in the State of Rajasthan and matters incidental thereto”; the whole purpose and intent of the legislature behind such enactment is to protect the rights of the landlord and tenant, and that, only landlord and tenant are covered therein in case any dispute arises between them under Act of 2001; no third party rights can be created under the dispute, as per the said enactment. This Court also observes that the legislature enacted the Act of 2001 and established the Rent Tribunals and Appellant Rent Tribunals for the purpose of expeditious and lawful resolution of the dispute between landlord and tenant, and therefore, involvement/impleadment of any third party in a case pertaining to the dispute between the landlord and the tenant is not permissible under the law. 13. This Court further observes that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. (Supra) has held that, “First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties”. 13. This Court further observes that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. (Supra) has held that, “First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (Landlord) against the defendant (Tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties”. Therefore, the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC can be held to be valid, so as to hold ground and warrant acceptance thereof, in an eviction litigation going on under the Act of 2001, only when it is proved that there exists a relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff (seeking eviction) and the applicant (seeking impleadment in the case), as substantiated by the settled proposition of law”. Suresh & Ors. (Supra): “20. Undisputedly, the petitioners are claiming title on the ground that the suit property is a part of the Hindu United Family as such, the petitioners are having right, title and interest in the suit property. 21. The written statement filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shows that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have disputed ownership of the respondent No. 1 and also denied the relationship as landlord and tenant. 22. Thus, in the above referred backdrop and to find out whether the petitioners are necessary or proper parties to the suit, I will first refer to the law laid down in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanaklata Das (supra), ……… ……….. 23. From the above referred observations, it is thus, clear that in eviction suit filed by the landlord only the landlord and tenant are necessary party. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead any third party to proceeding, unless that third party proves that he is necessary party and without his presence the suit cannot be proceeded with effectively. 24. It is also evident that the co-owner or co-sharer in the suit property is neither necessary nor proper party to the eviction proceedings and in his absence, the suit can be decided or dismissed on merit”. 9. This Court also observes that the as per the settled law, a co-owner(s) is neither a necessary party nor proper party for the effective adjudication of the eviction suit, pending under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, and that, only landlord and tenant are the necessary party therein. 9. This Court also observes that the as per the settled law, a co-owner(s) is neither a necessary party nor proper party for the effective adjudication of the eviction suit, pending under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, and that, only landlord and tenant are the necessary party therein. In the present case, the respondent no.1-landlord and respondent no.2-tenant, being the necessary and proper parties, are already parties to the suit in question. 10. This Court further observes that as per the compromise decree dated 28.08.1989, two shops came in the share of the respondent no.1, one was let out to the present respondent no.2 and another to one Kailash Chandra Kalya; the eviction petition filed against Kailash Chandra Kalya was pending and the petitioner filed an application for impleadment as party in the said eviction case also; but the said application was rejected on 09.10.2013 by the learned Rent Tribunal; writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9269/2022 filed against the said order, was also dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, both the shops came in the share of the respondent no.1 on the basis of the compromise. In such circumstances, since in the earlier pending petition qua one rented shop, the petitioner was not impleaded as party, therefore, in the eviction petition in question, the impleadment of the petitioner was not necessary. 11. In light of the aforesaid observations and the precedent laws as referred hereinabove as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.