JUDGMENT : 1. Though the matter has been listed under the ‘Reply Not Filed Category’, however, the matter is being heard today itself with the consent of counsel for both the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- a) the order dated 17.1.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr Div.) Sujangarh, District Churu may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) the application filed by the petitioners under order 1 rule 10 of CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed. c) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of Justice and the petitioners may kindly be passed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for eviction was filed by deceased respondent No.1-plaintiff Ramdai on ground of default against respondent No.2-defendant Ashok Kumar who is the real son of the respondent No.1-plaintiff. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.2-defendant Ashok Kumar and the petitioner No.2 Amit is the son of Ashok Kumar and the respondent No.1-plaintiff was the mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and grandmother of petitioner No.2 and both the petitioners are living in the premises as they are the family members of the respondent No.1 -plaintiff. 4. The deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai filed a suit (Annexure-1) of eviction against her son respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar who was paying rent till the date 31.12.2004 but thereafter he did not pay the rent and therefore the deceased respondent No. 1-plaintiff Ramdai gave a legal notice to the defendant Ashok Kumar who refused to take the notice. It was also prayed that the vacant possession of the premises be handed over to the deceased respondent No.1-plaintiff. However the respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar did not appear before the trial court even after service of notice on him and thus the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against him. 5. It was also prayed that the vacant possession of the premises be handed over to the deceased respondent No.1-plaintiff. However the respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar did not appear before the trial court even after service of notice on him and thus the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against him. 5. Thereafter as the petitioners were living in the premises owned by the deceased respondent No. 1-plaintiff in the capacity of family members of deceased Ramdai therefore they filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 (Annexure-2) for impleading them as a party respondent in the suit as the respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar was not appearing in the suit as he was not living with the petitioners for many years. The deceased Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a reply (Annexure-6) to the application filed by the petitioners and denied the contentions of the application. 6. The petitioners are living in the house and the electricity connection, water supply connection and the telephone connections (Annexure-3) are also in the name of the petitioner No.1. Moreover the names of petitioners are also entered in electoral roll (Annexure-4) and in the copy of Ration Card Certificate as well issued by Municipal Board Chapper (Annexure-5). 7. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code 1908 was heard and rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 17.01.2015. (Annexure-7). In addition to that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 died on 16.6.2007 and respondent No.1/1 Anil Kumar who is a son-in-law of the deceased plaintiff-respondent No.1 was arrayed as a legal representative vide order dated 17.1.2015. Thus being aggrieved of the order dated 17.01.2015 dismissing application Order 1 Rule 10 filed by the petitioners, the petitioners prefer this writ petition. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is a daughter-in-law of the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai and wife of the defendant and similarly the petitioner No.2 is the grandson of the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai and son of defendant and both the petitioners are living in the house as the family members of deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai and defendant. He further submitted that the defendant never took the premises on rent but the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai and defendant in order to throw out the petitioners from the house hatched the conspiracy and filed the present suit and the conspiracy is evident from the very fact that despite the service the defendant did not put his appearance before the learned trial court therefore ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him but the learned trial court did not consider this vital aspect of the case while rejecting the application of the petitioners hence the impugned order is bad in eye of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners are the necessary and proper party in the matter as they are occupying the premises since a time long time as family members of the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai, and the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai, thereafter her legal representative respondent No.1/1 Anil Kumar and the respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar are bent upon to oust the petitioners from the premises in dispute and therefore the petitioners are necessary party to the suit. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the electricity, water, telephone bills were in the name of petitioners which is used in the house in dispute which clearly shows that the house was never rented out to either respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar or the petitioners. He also submitted that the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai and respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar are trying to remove the petitioners from house by way of a frivolous suit therefore the petitioners are required to be protected which can only be done when they are arrayed as respondents in the suit. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the trial court has given a finding that in the cases of eviction only the land lord and the tenant are required to be seen and enquiry into the title is not required in such matters as the petitioners-applicants had come before the trial court with a precise case that they are living in the house as family members of deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai and respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar and thus they are trying to oust the petitioners from the house by way of a collusive suit. 12. 12. Per Contra Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff-Respondent No.1 Ramdai had right over the house in question and the petitioners have no right over it. Moreover Petitioner No.1‘s husband Ashok Kumar had taken the house in question on rent and the petitioners have not spent any money on the house in question and the petitioners have no right and possession over the house in question and thus the petitioners do not deserve to be made a party to the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. 13. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. This Court finds that the court below has observed that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Ramdai through a Will dated 22.12.2005 transferred the house in question to her son-in-law and legal representative i.e. respondent No.1/1 Anil Kumar and thus Anil Kumar is now the owner of the house in question. In the present case the suit is between the landlord and the tenant and therefore the petitioners are not the necessary party to the eviction suit and thus the application under Order 1 Rule 10 has been rightly rejected by the Court below as the petitioners are not residing in the premises in dispute in the capacity of a tenant. 15. This Court further observes that the respondent No.1 Ramdai (deceased) preferred a suit for eviction specifically against her son i.e. respondent no.2 Ashok Kumar and as the petitioners have not pleaded anywhere in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that the petitioners and the respondent no.1/1 are having a relationship of landlord and tenant, thus, the apprehension of the petitioners that by way of the suit filed by the deceased respondent No.1 Ramdai, the petitioners would be evicted from the premises in-dispute is baseless, particularly, when the suit for eviction can be decided only between a landlord and a tenant and the said suit cannot determine the ownership rights in the said suit. 16. Thus, the impugned order dated 17.1.2015 (Annex.7) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sujangarh, District Churu does not call for any interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed 17. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.