ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:- “(a) The impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (Annex-3) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No.97/2022 [Chandratan Chandak Vs. M/s Aaradhya Digital Scale] may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (b) The application preferred by the respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of 1908 may kindly be rejected in toto. (c) The learned Rent Tribunal may kindly be directed to delete the name of respondent No.1/non-applicant No.2 in the array of cause title.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, seeking an injunction against the non-applicant/respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed reply to the said application and thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’), 1908, came to be filed by the respondent No.2, claiming himself to be the owner of the said premises in dispute. The petitioner filed reply to the said application while denying the facts stated therein and the learned Tribunal allowed the said application vide order dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure-3) and being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, has wrongly been allowed, as the newly added respondent was unable to establish the relationship of the landlord and the tenant. He further submits that the original tenant in his reply, has accepted the relationship of the landlord between the petitioner and himself and thus, there was no occasion for the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner, to allow the application filed by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has not prayed for any relief against the respondent No.1 and he, being the Dominus Litis of the suit, cannot be compelled to implead respondent No.1 as a party respondent in the suit filed before the learned Tribunal. He also submits that the respondent No.1 has claimed himself to be the owner of the premises in dispute, however, in the petition filed by the petitioner, the title of the premises in dispute, cannot be decided. 4. He also submits that the respondent No.1 has claimed himself to be the owner of the premises in dispute, however, in the petition filed by the petitioner, the title of the premises in dispute, cannot be decided. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 decided on 25.01.2018. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “6. The said application for impleadment made by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Trial Court by order 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) but it was allowed by the High Court by the impugned order giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave in this Court against the order of the High Court by the appellants plaintiffs. 7. xxxx 8. xxxx 9. xxxx 10. xxxx 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:- 11. 1. xxxx 11. 2 xxxx 11. 3 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. 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. 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 ale 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. 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, then suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary for the effective decision of the suit. 11. 5. xxxx 11. 6. xxxx 12. xxxx 13. xxxx 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 titled 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.” Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment in the case of J.J. Lal Private Ltd. & Ors Vs. M.R. Murali & Anr. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 98 , decided on 08.02.2002. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Shyamlal Vyas (dead) through LRs. Gopi Vyas and others Vs. Inderchand (dead) through LRs. Om Prakash Jain and others., reported in [(2022 (2) M.P.L.J.], decided on 07.01.2022. Relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “9. The issue of impleadment of third party in the eviction proceedings on the basis of title or ownership was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment in the case of J. J. Lal Private Ltd. vs. M. R. Murali (supra) and it was held as under: "I. A. Nos. 33-36 of 2001 26. The issue of impleadment of third party in the eviction proceedings on the basis of title or ownership was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgment in the case of J. J. Lal Private Ltd. vs. M. R. Murali (supra) and it was held as under: "I. A. Nos. 33-36 of 2001 26. Hemlata Mohan, the applicant in these IAs seeks her impleadment in these proceedings submitting that on the basis of the Will dated 30-1-1935 executed by her grand-father she is one of the landlords entitled to apportionment of rent. A suit for establishment of her title and share in the property is pending in Madras High Court registered as Civil Suit No. 452 of 1988. I. A. Nos. 41 to 44 of 2001 27. These applications are filed by Municipal Corporation of Chennai seeking its impleadment in the proceedings alleging that the two premises, Door Nos. 244 and 264, subject-matter of litigation in these proceedings are owned by it and therefore it needs to be impleaded as party in these appeals. 28. Both the sets of applications raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of these proceedings. This is a simple landlord-tenant suit. The relationship of Municipal Corporation with the respondents and their mutual rights and obligations are not germane to the present proceedings. Similarly, the question of title between Hemlata Mohan and the respondents cannot be decided in these proceedings. The Impleadment of any of the two applicants would change the complexion of litigation and raise such controversies as are beyond the scope of this litigation. The presence of either of the applicants is neither necessary for the decision of the question involved in these proceedings nor their presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in these proceedings. They are neither necessary nor proper parties. Any decision in these proceedings would govern and bind the parties herein. Each of the two applicants is free to establish its own claims and title whatever it may be in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The applications for impleadment are dismissed." 10. In view of the above legal position, it is clear that the scope of eviction proceedings is very limited. Each of the two applicants is free to establish its own claims and title whatever it may be in any independent proceedings before a competent forum. The applications for impleadment are dismissed." 10. In view of the above legal position, it is clear that the scope of eviction proceedings is very limited. If on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence led by both the sides, the landlord-tenant relationship is established between the parties and the ground of eviction is proved then the decree or order of eviction would be passed. To ascertain the landlord-tenant relationship, the issue of title or ownership over the property is not to be decided by the concerned adjudicating forum. Thus, all the issues related to eviction can be finally and effectually decided between the landlord and tenant without impleading any third party may be claiming title over the property. Thus, impleadment of third party in eviction proceedings on the basis of claiming the title over the rented property is not permissible. 11. xxxxxx 12. xxxxxx 13. xxxxxx 14. xxxxxx 15. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-landlord is not party to the suit, wherein decree of eviction with regard to rented shop has been passed against the present tenant and in favour of intervenor-respondent. However, the said decree will take its own course as per law. This Court under these proceedings is not required to comment over the effect and operation of the said decree. The Rent Controlling Authority would decide landlord-tenant relationship between the parties taking into consideration the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence led by both the sides including said decree of Civil Court and all other relevant documents related to the disputes which are pending before several Courts up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as produced before it by any of the parties, but present intervenor-respondent, being third party, cannot be treated to be a necessary or proper party in the eviction proceedings as its presence in the eviction proceedings is not necessary for adjudication at all and the same can very well be adjudicated without its impleadment. 16. xxxxxxx 17. In view of above discussion and the reason stated, this Court is of the view that learned Rent Controlling Authority has erred in allowing the application of impleadment by the intervenor-respondent. 16. xxxxxxx 17. In view of above discussion and the reason stated, this Court is of the view that learned Rent Controlling Authority has erred in allowing the application of impleadment by the intervenor-respondent. The impugned order suffers with material illegality and infirmity which is not sustainable in the eyes of law consequently, petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application filed by intervenor-respondent for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code is dismissed. The Rent Controlling Authority to proceed further with the eviction application in accordance with law.” 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.1 had served a legal notice to the grandson of the petitioner on 05.09.2022 for vacation of premises in dispute. He further submits that after serving the legal notice, the respondent No.2 in connivance with the petitioner, entered into an agreement on 7.09.2022 and thereafter, the suit came to be filed before the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner on 16.09.2022. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, also submits that the respondent No.1 being the owner of the premises in dispute, is the necessary and proper party for adjudication of the suit filed by the petitioner. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 places reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rishab Chand Bhandari (D) by LRs. & Anr. Vs. National Engineering Industry Ltd. reported in 2010 DNJ (SC) 214, decided on 17.09.2009. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “11. In the present case the respondent has not been able to show that it was authorized in writing to act on behalf of the Trust either by a power of attorney or any other written document. Unless there is some documentary proof that the Trust had authorized its agent to file a suit for eviction on its behalf, it cannot be said that the respondent had any right to file such a suit, even though it had actually let out the premises to the appellant and collected rent. The respondent is admittedly not the owner of the premises, and only claims to be the agent of the Trust.” 8. The respondent is admittedly not the owner of the premises, and only claims to be the agent of the Trust.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1, while placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, submits that as the respondent No.1 is the owner of the premises in dispute, therefore, he is the landlord of the same and also the necessary and proper party in adjudication of the suit filed by the petitioner. He also submits that the respondent No.1 has not authorized the petitioner for the purpose of letting out the premises in dispute to any other person. 9. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record as well as the judgments cited. 10. Upon perusal of the record, it is seen that the respondent No.2 has very categorically stated that the petitioner, who has preferred the suit against him, is the owner of the shop in dispute and has let out the said shop to him since very long and had also entered in an agreement on 1/7.09.2022 and further, has also admitted the relationship of tenant and the landlord between himself and the petitioner. 11. Upon perusal of Section 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’), it is writ large that the landlord means any person who for the first time, is receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises and in the present case, the respondent No.2 in reply to the suit filed by the petitioner, has admitted that the petitioner was in receipt of the rent since long and therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent No.2, cannot be denied. Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2001, is reproduced hereunder:- “2. Definitions.- (a) xxxx (b) xxxx (c) "landlord" means any person ho for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant;” 12. The object of the legislation is to give sufficient protection to the landlord for the purpose of eviction of premises in dispute and when the provisions are invoked, then in such case, the learned tribunals are not under an obligation to decide the title of the premises in dispute. Thus, the respondent No.1, in order to establish the title of the property in dispute has a remedy available. In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the respondent No.1 and the petitioner being the Dominus Litis of the suit, cannot be compelled to make the respondent No.1, as a party, particularly when no relief has been claimed against him as has been laid down in the case of Kanaklata Das (supra). 13. As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove and applying the ratio of the judgments cited, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.2023 (Annexure-3) passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Bikaner in Rent Case No.97/2022 (Chandratan Chandak Vs. M/s Aaradhya Digital Scale), deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 15. No order as to costs.