JUDGMENT Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order (Annexure P-10) as passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, (for short 'the trial Court') on 13.07.2022 in Civil Suit No.634 of 2019 titled as 'Mrs. Ujjawal Sahrawat v. State of Haryana and others', (for short 'the subsequent Civil Suit'), whereby the application (Annexure P-5) moved by the petitioners-applicants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the petitioners') under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC with a prayer for being impleaded as the party in the above-said Civil Suit, has been dismissed, they (petitioners) have preferred the instant revision petition to lay challenge to the same. 2. As per the brief factual-matrix culminating in the filing of the present revision-petition, Smt. Sunehri Devi, the mother of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1, mother-in-law of petitioner No.2 and grand-mother of petitioners No.3 and 4, was the owner of the suit property. She died on 30.11.2009. Then, respondent No.1 as well as the petitioners filed separate Civil Suits to claim their ownership over the said property and the same are stated to be pending adjudication in the competent Courts. However, respondent No.1 filed the subsequent Civil Suit against respondents No.2 to 4-defendants in the Court at Panchkula for seeking a decree for mandatory injunction, by way of directing them (defendants) to hand-over the physical possession of the suit property to her and also prayed for the grant of some more reliefs, while claiming herself to be the exclusive owner of the said property. Then, the petitioners preferred the afore-mentioned application in the Suit, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants, Dr. Tammanna R. Sahrawat, Special Attorney of respondent No.1-plaintiff and learned State counsel for respondents No.2 to 4-defendants in this revision petition and have also perused the file carefully. 4. Then, the petitioners preferred the afore-mentioned application in the Suit, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants, Dr. Tammanna R. Sahrawat, Special Attorney of respondent No.1-plaintiff and learned State counsel for respondents No.2 to 4-defendants in this revision petition and have also perused the file carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the plaintiff has filed the subsequent Civil Suit against respondents No.2 to 4 for seeking the possession of the suit property, by averring that she is the exclusive owner thereof but she has not impleaded the petitioners as party in the same, despite the fact that the dispute between her and the petitioners qua the title/ownership over the said property, is yet to be adjudicated by the competent Courts wherein the above-said Civil Suits, as filed by them, are pending and it being so, the subsequent Civil Suit cannot be properly adjudicated in the absence of the petitioners but vide the impugned order, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed their (petitioners') afore-mentioned application and therefore, this order deserves to be set-aside. 5. Per contra, the Special Attorney of respondent No.1 has referred to Annexure R-2, i.e the copy of the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Rent Controller, qua the dismissal of the application moved by the present petitioners for being impleaded as the party in the Eviction Petition filed by respondent No.1 against respondents No.2 to 4 and she has also referred to Annexure R-1, the copy of the order passed by this Court on 18.02.2014, dismissing the revision petition bearing CR No.1237 of 2014, as preferred by the petitioners to assail the order Annexure R-2 and she has, further, pointed out that the entries of the relevant Municipal Record also corroborate the factum of the ownership of respondent No.1 over the suit property and she has argued that the above-discussed documents make it explicit that respondent No.1 is the exclusive owner of the said property and hence, she has every right to seek the possession of the same and the petitioners have no right, title or interest in this property and therefore, they cannot be termed to be the necessary party to the subsequent Civil Suit. 6. 6. Concededly, the afore-said Civil Suits, filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.1 for claiming their ownership/title over the suit property, are still pending adjudication in the competent Courts and in such circumstances, this Court, being the Revisional Court, is neither supposed nor required to comment upon or to make any observations in respect of the rights claimed by them in those Civil Suits. Thus, the sole question, that requires to be answered by this Court in the instant revision petition, is as to whether the petitioners are necessary party for the proper adjudication of the subsequent Civil Suit or not. 7. Though vide the order Annexure R-1, this Court has dismissed the Civil Revision while observing that the Rent Controller had rightly held in the order Annexure R-2 that the petitioners were not necessary to be impleaded as party in the ejectment petition but it has also specifically been observed therein that the partition proceedings were stated to be pending between the parties and so far as the claim of the petitioners qua the title over the suit property was concerned, they could take recourse to their legal remedy. In view of these observations, mere dismissal of the said Civil Revision can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to have conferred the right of exclusive ownership upon respondent No.1 in respect of the said property. Rather, Annexure P-1 is copy of the order dated 16.07.2015, passed subsequently in CR No.7769 of 2014, as preferred by the present respondent No.1 to assail the order passed by the Rent Controller qua the dismissal of the eviction petition filed by her against respondents No.2 to 4 and also the judgment handed down by the Appellate Authority, dismissing her appeal as filed against the said order, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has made the following categoric observations :- "I have heard Ms. Tammana Sahrawat at length and with her assistance carefully gone through the documents placed on the record but I am of the opinion that the judgment passed in CR No. 1237 of 2014 affirming the order declining to implead the other co-owners as party cannot be taken to be a judgment determining the non-existence of other heirs of Sunehri Devi, who was the admitted landlady of the tenanted premises. The authorities under the Act have got no jurisdiction to determine the title of the parties. The authorities under the Act have got no jurisdiction to determine the title of the parties. The claim of the petitioner that the petitioner should be held to be exclusive landlord qua the respondents is not acceptable as the petitioner has failed to establish that she is exclusive person falling under the definition of 'landlord'. The claim of the respondents/tenants is that they had already vacated the premises and had paid the rent by depositing the same in the account of Sunehri Devi. X X X X X X X X X X X The petition is dismissed observing that the status of the petitioner will be a co-landlord, without expression of any opinion regarding her title on the basis of the Will which is to be determined by the Civil Court where the litigation between the heirs of Sunehri Devi regarding ownership of the shops in dispute is pending." It is worth-while to mention here that Special Leave Petition No.487 of 2016, preferred by the present respondent No.1 to lay challenge to the above-quoted observations, has also been dismissed by the Apex Court vide the order dated 17.10.2016. In these circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that respondent No.1 has been held to be a co-landlord of the suit property till the adjudication of the Civil Suits filed by her and the petitioners qua their ownership/title over the said property. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 has filed the subsequent Civil Suit while claiming that she is the exclusive owner of the suit property and is entitled to seek/get the possession of the same. It is well settled that the scope of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is wider than that of the Rent Controller as the Civil Court can look into and decide the dispute between the parties qua the ownership/ title over the subject matter of the Civil Suit whereas the adjudication of such like dispute is beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. In this scenario, the petitioners, at present, cannot be termed to be the strangers to the suit property and rather, they are necessary party to the subsequent Civil Suit for its proper and effective adjudication. 8. In this scenario, the petitioners, at present, cannot be termed to be the strangers to the suit property and rather, they are necessary party to the subsequent Civil Suit for its proper and effective adjudication. 8. So far as the above-referred Municipal Record is concerned, the same is relevant and meant for the assessment of house-tax and hence, it does not suffice at all to outrightly oust the claim of the petitioners in respect of the suit property and rather, the same would be determined in the afore-said Civil Suits, as filed by them and respondent No.1 as well. 9. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order (Annexure P-10) is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, the same is hereby set-aside and the application Annexure P-5, as moved by the petitioners, is allowed. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand also stands allowed accordingly.