ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: “1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Impugned order dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Rent Tribunal), Udaipur may Kindly be quashed and set aside by allowing the Application of the Petitioner submitted before learned Rent Tribunal, Udaipur as prayed for. 2. Any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that an application (Annexure-1) under section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act was filed for eviction of the premise situated at House No. 512, Panchratna Complex, Road No. 1, Udaipur against Late Smt Amita Prakash by respondent No. 1 Arjundas Khatri with the averments that late Smt Amita Prakash is the tenant of the premises in question and rent of Rs. 18,500/- was agreed between the parties orally. Thereafter a rent agreement was executed on 1.04.2005 and the tenancy for the premises was decided for a period of 5 years. Thereafter a notice dated 14.10.2014 was served on Late Smt. Amita Prakash for vacation of the premises in dispute. The said notice was returned back by the post with the remark that the address of the notice was not found thus vide notice dated 31.01.2015 the tenancy was terminated by respondent No. 1. 3. Thereafter, non-applicant/Late Amita Prakash submitted a reply (Annexure-2) to the rent application and denied all the contentions therein and stated that the application is barred by non joinder of UN Automobiles and thereafter non-applicant/Late Amita Prakash prayed to dismiss the rent application. Applicant respondent No. 1 filed a rejoinder (Annexure-3) to the reply. Thereafter the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur framed five issues dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure-4). 4. Furthermore, Late Smt. Amita Prakash filed the writ petition bearing SBCWP No. 13838/2016 against respondent No. 1 challenging order dated 15.10.2016 whereby the learned Presiding Officer Rent Tribunal Udaipur rejected the application under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC which is pending consideration before this Court. That during the pendency of the writ petition Smt Amita Prakash died on 13.07.2021. 5. That during the pendency of the writ petition Smt Amita Prakash died on 13.07.2021. 5. The petitioner company through Director Suresh Salvi filed an application (Annexure-6) dated 08.11.2023 under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 read with Order 1 rule 10 CPC stating therein that it may be made a party to the suit as respondent No. 1 filed an eviction application against only late Smt. Amita Prakash the erstwhile Director of the Company and not against the present petitioner Company the U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. which paid security amount of Rs. 96,000/- for the rent which proves that the petitioner company is a tenant and therefore it was a joint tenancy of late Smt. Amita Prakash and the petitioner company. 6. The respondent No. 1 submitted reply dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure-7) to the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner. The Senior Civil Judge Rent Tribunal, Udaipur dismissed the application dated 08.11.2023 filed by the petitioner vide order dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure-8). Being aggrieved of the order dated 02.12.2023, the petitioner prefers the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Learned Rent Tribunal wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner Company is not a necessary party to the suit without considering the material available on record as have not considered the fact that the respondent No. 1-landlord has himself agreed that the rent agreement was between him and late Smt. Amita Prakash who is representing the company and thus the Company U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is a necessary party to the suit and without impleading it as a party no effective order can be passed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner company also submits that on receiving the information from Amit Prakash (Husband of Late Smt. Amita Prakash) the petitioner got to know for the first time that the respondent No. 1 has filed the case in the Learned Rent Tribunal by treating Late Mrs. Amita Prakash as the only tenant whereas the company along with Mrs. Amita Prakash were in joint possession of the premise in dispute. Amita Prakash as the only tenant whereas the company along with Mrs. Amita Prakash were in joint possession of the premise in dispute. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 has categorically admitted in his statement before the rent tribunal that the disputed premises is in possession of the company and Suresh Salvi is one of the Directors of the company and thus respondent No. 1 has deliberately not made the petitioner company as a party respondent. He also submits that if the petitioner company is not impleaded then the eviction petition would not be represented by anyone as the original tenant has expired and therefore the petitioner company is a necessary party. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sumtibai and Others vs. Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and Others. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “14. In view of the aforesaid decisions we are of the opinion that Kasturis case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.” 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is misleading the Court because the rent note executed in 2005 was between the Landlord-Respondent No. 1 and late Amita Prakash and it was decided among the parties in the rent agreement that if Amita Prakash wanted she could give the premises in dispute to the petitioner company to use it. He further submits that the main directors of the petitioner company are Amit Prakash and Amita prakash and as a director, Amita Prakash is already representing the petitioner company therefore the application filed by the additional director ie Suresh Salvi is rightly rejected. 11. He further submits that the main directors of the petitioner company are Amit Prakash and Amita prakash and as a director, Amita Prakash is already representing the petitioner company therefore the application filed by the additional director ie Suresh Salvi is rightly rejected. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner company is not the tenant of the premises in dispute and that respondent No. 1 has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by Amita Prakash to the eviction application and the respondent No. 1 has clearly mentioned that on the exhibit-4 i.e. on the rent note Amita Prakash had signed in personal capacity and no agreement has ever been executed in favour of the petitioner company. He further submits that the petitioner company has no relation with the premises in dispute thus the application filed by the petitioner company’s additional director Suresh is rightly dismissed. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in an eviction suit filed by the Landlord against the Tenant the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties for the decision of the suit, and none other. In support of the submissions the learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 352 . Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here 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. 14. xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx 16. xxx xxx xxx 17. 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. xxx xxx xxx 15. xxx xxx xxx 16. xxx xxx xxx 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.” Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at the Bar. 13. This Court finds that the Learned Rent Tribunal has observed that (Exhibit-4) the rent note, clearly depicts that the premises in dispute were rented by Arjundas Khatri-Respondent No. 1 to Late Smt. Amita Prakash wherein, condition No. 6 has been mentioned that Amita Prakash will not sublet the premises in dispute to anyone and if, she wishes she can give the premises in dispute only to the petitioner company UN Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. to use it. The Learned Rent Tribunal also observed that the petitioner company has three Directors, two main Directors-Amit Prakash, Amita Prakash and one additional Director Suresh Salvi, who has filed the present writ petition, and it is also clear that Amita Prakash was earlier already representing the petitioner company and in an eviction suit filed by the Landlord against the Tenant, the landlord and the tenant are the only necessary parties for the decision of the suit, and none other and in the present case the agreement note was executed between the respondent No. 1 and Amita Prakash and thus it is prima facie clear that there is no relation of landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent No. 1 and Suresh Salvi (the additional director of the petitioner company). 14. 14. This Court further observes that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of “tenant” as enumerated in the Rajasthan Rent control Act 2001 for the reason that the rent agreement was duly executed between late Amita Prakash and the Respondent No. 1-Landlord and not between the additional Director Suresh Salvi and the respondent No. 1-landlord. The rent was also paid by Amita Prakash to the Landlord-respondent No. 1 and the additional Director Suresh Salvi was not paying the rent to the landlord-respondent No. 1 thus he cannot claim to be the necessary and proper party for adjudication of the eviction suit. The Definition of “tenant” as enumerated under Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001 is reproduced here as under: “(i) “tenant” means: (i) the person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any premises to his landlord including the person who is continuing in its possession after the termination of his tenancy otherwise than by an order or decree for eviction passed under the provisions of this Act. (ii) in the event of death of the person referred to in sub-clause (i): (a) in case of premises let out for residential purposes, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily residing with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death. (b) in case of premises let out for commercial or business purposes, his surviving spouse, son, daughter, mother and father who had been ordinarily carrying on business with him in such premises as member of his family upto his death.” 15. This court further observes that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the eviction petition would not be represented by anyone before the Learned Rent Tribunal upon the death of the original-tenant, is having no force as the legal representatives of the original tenant are already taken on record. Also on the face of it, the petitioner has utterly failed to show the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent-landlord. 16. Also on the face of it, the petitioner has utterly failed to show the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent-landlord. 16. This court also observes that the judgment placed reliance on by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as the same is pertaining to specific performance of a contract for sale wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where a party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property of dispute, he can file an application for impleadment, however in the present case the same being an eviction petition, the petitioner is required to establish the relationship of Landlord-Tenant, which he has failed to do so. 17. This Court further observes that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das and Others vs. Naba Kumar Das and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 352 clearly states that in tenancy only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit namely the landlord and the tenant and the petitioner in the present case does not fall under the definition of tenant. Furthermore in the judgment Kanaklata Das (Supra) it has been held that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, and in the present case the respondent No. 1-landlord filed the eviction application only against Late Amita Prakash and thus respondent No. 1 cannot be compelled to make Suresh Salvi as party respondent thus on the basis of discussion made above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here 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 which arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra: 11.1. 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. 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. 11.2 xxx xxx xxx 11.3 xxx xxx xxx 11.4. 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. 11.2 xxx xxx xxx 11.3 xxx xxx xxx 11.4. 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. 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.” 18. As an upshot of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 02.12.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal) Udaipur and the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 19. Stay Application as well as all other pending applications, if any also stand dismissed.