JUDGMENT : 1. Though the matter was listed in ‘Fresh’ Category but on the joint request of both the counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted and by an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 (Annex 6) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand be ordered to be quashed and set-aside and the application under order 1 rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as a whole. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The respondent no. 1 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the basis of bona-fide and reasonable necessity of the rented premises and also on the basis of default in rent. 4. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for his impleadment in the eviction proceedings on the ground that a suit for partition with respect to the properties of the father of the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No.1 has been pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rajsamand and the present suit property on which the petitioner is a tenant, is also a subject matter of the said partition suit. 5. The petitioner has opposed the impleadment application of the respondent No. 2 however, the Learned Rent Tribunal allowed the same vide order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure-3). 6. During the pendency of the rent proceedings, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the averments that the legal representatives of the father of the Rent Petitioner, namely, Shri Madhavlal, are necessary parties to the proceedings which was subsequently rejected by the Learned Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as Learned Court below) vide order dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure-6). 7. 7. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Learned Court below dated 22.07.2022 has preferred a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner have submitted that the Rent Tribunal has committed error by dismissing the impleadment application of the petitioner as the remaining legal representatives of the original landlord Madhav Lal are necessary parties to the proceedings and the partition suit remains pending between the respondent No. 1 and the other legal representatives. He also submitted that the rent amount was paid to the owner Madhavlal during his lifetime. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that vide order dated 14.02.2013 the learned court below has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by one of the legal representatives of deceased Madhavlal, i.e. respondent No. 2, thus the court below has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in respect to impleadment of the remaining other legal representatives. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Hari Kishan Modi v. Smt. Santosh [SB Civil Writ Petition 5870 of 2007, decided on 12.03.2008]. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “3. It is submitted that since the proceedings of partition are pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the plaintiff-petitioner alone cannot file a suit for getting the possession of the shop in question as there are many other share holders of the property and if the suit is decided without impleading him as respondent then all the share holders will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The petitioner filed reply to the said application and refuted the allegations made therein. 4. The learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner after considering the contentions Taised in the application and reply filed by the petitioner, allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded Ganesh Lal son of Shanker Lal as party in the suit and further observed that objections raised by the petitioner in reply will be decided at appropriate stage.” 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the person receiving the Rent Amount is the owner of the premises and is authorized to file the Eviction Suit. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the person receiving the Rent Amount is the owner of the premises and is authorized to file the Eviction Suit. He also submitted that the respondent No. 1 has himself in his reply stated that the petitioner kept sending rent considering the respondent No.1 as the owner of the premises and also, that the respondent No. 1 has been receiving the rent of the premises from the petitioner even after the death of Late Madhavlal ji. He submitted that thus the Petitioner/Tenant has been considering the respondent No. 1 as the owner of the Rented premises and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rightly rejected. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that the dispute is in respect to the landlord/owner of the rented premises and the Tenant, and not the ownership of the property in question and, therefore, all the legal representatives are not required to be impleaded. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that if the heir as suggested by the petitioner is to be impleaded to the eviction suit in hand, then the dispute with respect to ownership of the rented premises will go beyond the scope of the provision of the Act of 2001 and thus prayed that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for respondents have relied on Tmt Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M Chinniyan passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court [Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2009 decided on 28.01.2016]. The relevant portions of the judgment read as under: “35) Likewise, so far as issue pertaining to joinder of all co-owners in eviction petition filed against the tenant under the Rent Laws is concerned, the same also remains no more res Integra and stands settled by several decisions of this Court. In Dhannalal vs. Kalawathibai Ors.. (Supra), this Court took note of all case laws on the subject and explained the legal position governing the issue. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held in paragraph 16 as under: 16. In Dhannalal vs. Kalawathibai Ors.. (Supra), this Court took note of all case laws on the subject and explained the legal position governing the issue. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held in paragraph 16 as under: 16. It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (1976) 4 SCC 184 Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, [1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the teriant, without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In Sri Ram Pasricha case reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or more landlord: institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the requirement must be of all the landlords: The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also satisfied the requirement of being “if he is the owner", the expression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.” 15. In addition to this, learned counsel for respondents have further relied upon Kanaklata das v. Naba Kumar (2018) 2 SCC 352 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant portions of the judgment read as under: “11. In addition to this, learned counsel for respondents have further relied upon Kanaklata das v. Naba Kumar (2018) 2 SCC 352 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant portions of the judgment read as under: “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. 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. 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.” 16. Learned counsel for respondents also relied upon the judgment passed the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jodhpur, Smt Tara Devi v. Chand Mal [SB Civil Writ Petition 9478 of 2023 decided on 26.07.2023]. The relevant portions of the judgment read as under: “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.” 17. Heard Learned Counsel for parties, perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 18. 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.” 17. Heard Learned Counsel for parties, perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 18. It is important to note that the petitioner in his reply to the eviction suit has admitted that the rent was being accepted by the respondent No.1 during the life time of the deceased Madhavlal and even after the death of Madhavlal, which is a necessary factor to decide the necessary parties to the eviction suit filed by the respondent No.1, as held in the case of Kanaklata Das Vs. Naba Kumar (supra) passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit namely the landlord and the tenant and in the present case, since during the life time of the deceased Madhavlal and after the death of Madhavlal, the petitioner has been paying the rent to the respondent No.1, therefore, the other legal representatives of deceased Madhavlal cannot be said to be a necessary party for the decision of the eviction suit. 19. It is also important here to note that the present case is restricted to the tenancy between the landlord and the tenant and in the present case, the learned trial court is not required to decide the ownership of the property in dispute, therefore, if there are other co-owners or co-landlord of the premises in dispute then, they are not required to be impleaded for deciding the suit for eviction. 20. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as a party to his suit unless it is held that; keeping in view the pleadings and the relief claimed therein that a person sought to be added as party, is a necessary party and without his presence, neither the suit can proceed and nor the relief can be granted. It is only then as such a person can be allowed to become a party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non impleadment of such necessary party. It is only then as such a person can be allowed to become a party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non impleadment of such necessary party. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the eviction suit could not be decided in the absence of the remaining legal representatives if not impleaded and further the respondent No.1 being the dominus litis of the eviction suit has not claimed any relief against the persons sought to be impleaded as party by the petitioner and, therefore, in such case, the respondent No.1 being dominus litis cannot be forced to join the remaining legal representatives of the deceased Madhavlal as they are neither a necessary party nor the proper party to the eviction suit and the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is just a delay in tactics adopted by him. 21. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Stay petition as well as all pending application, if any, also stand dismissed.