ORDER : V. Lakshminarayanan, J. This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif at Salem in allowing the application in I.A.No.32 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.27 of 2014, dated 09.07.2018, pending on its file. 2. The facts leading to the revision are the civil revision petitioner, claiming to be the landlord, presented R.C.O.P.No.27 of 2014. This is a petition presented invoking Section 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rent Control Act”). The case of the petitioner is that it is the owner of the premises and the 2 nd respondent had taken lease of the said property by way of an agreement dated 01.02.2013. A sum of Rs.1 lakh had been paid as a security amount. Despite the fact that the tenant had agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/-, he started to default in the same. Hence, the R.C.O.P. 3. The tenant/2 nd respondent herein entered appearance and filed a counter pleading that there is a dispute over the ownership of the property. He pleaded that the President of the 1 st respondent namely, Salem Self-Respect Propaganda Institution (hereinafter referred to as “third party”) had approached him for payment of rents. He did so, on the strength of the order, in W.P.No.30009 of 2012 dated 22.01.2013 . Taken aback by this demand, the tenant pleaded he had filed R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2014 invoking Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act. He also stated that he had opened the bank account and had been depositing the monthly rents in the said account. He adds he had opened the bank account only on account of the fact that there is a dispute between the alleged landlord and the third party. As annexures to the counter, he presented the notice issued by the third party, the order of the Inspector General of Registration, dated 19.06.2013 and the bank account details. 4. Soon thereafter, one Mr.Palani Pulliannan claiming to be the President of the third party filed I.A.No.32 of 2015. He alleged that the petition premises belongs to the institution, of which, he is the President. He urged that the disputes had arisen between the third party and the landlord with respect to the merger of the third party along with the landlord. He alleged that the petition premises belongs to the institution, of which, he is the President. He urged that the disputes had arisen between the third party and the landlord with respect to the merger of the third party along with the landlord. The affidavit pleads that the matter was taken up by the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, who passed an order on 19.06.2013 declaring that the merger between the two entities is unsustainable. Hence, he pleaded that the third party must be impleaded as a respondent to the rent control petition. 5.This petition was opposed by the landlord pleading that the Inspector General of Registration is not a Court to declare the right, title and interest of the third party and that the right of the landlord cannot be denied by the tenant as estoppel operates. 6. The learned Trial Judge took up the application for disposal and came to a conclusion that from the records filed by either side, the third party is a necessary party to the proceedings. Hence, he allowed the application. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition. 8. I issued notice in the revision and the contesting respondent namely, the third party has been served and is represented by Mr.D.Veerasekaran. 9. I heard Mr.Suryanarayanan for Mr.Rahul Balaji for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.D.Veerasekaran for the 1 st respondent. 10. As a tenant/2 nd respondent is not a necessary party to this revision, notice to him is dispensed with. 11. Mr.Suryanarayanan stated that the District Registrar of Salem had amalgamated the third party along with the petitioner society in and by way of an order dated 08.09.1998. This order was put in challenge before this Court in W.P.Nos.8637 of 1999 and 12625 of 1999. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. The Court found that the order of amalgamation is unsustainable and therefore, allowed W.P.No.8637 of 1999 quashing the order amalgamating the society. W.P.No.12625 of 1999 came to be dismissed on the ground the petitioner lacked locus-standi. He points out an appeal was preferred as against the order in W.P.No.8637 of 1999. This appeal was numbered as W.A.No.1162 of 2006. The appeal was allowed and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside. 12.Thereafter, the third party gave an appeal/representation to the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai on 03.01.2012. He points out an appeal was preferred as against the order in W.P.No.8637 of 1999. This appeal was numbered as W.A.No.1162 of 2006. The appeal was allowed and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside. 12.Thereafter, the third party gave an appeal/representation to the Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai on 03.01.2012. It challenged the order of amalgamation. Subsequently, the third party filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30009 of 2012 seeking for a writ of mandamus to dispose of the appeal presented by it. This Court ordered the writ petition on 22.01.2013 . Consequent to this order, the Inspector General of Registration took up the appeal and allowed the appeal setting aside the order of amalgamation by an order dated 19.06.2013. 13. Challenging the said order, the landlord preferred W.P.No.21277 of 2013 . By an order dated 13.01.2020, the writ petition was dismissed. The same was the fate with respect to the writ appeal preferred before the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1980 of 2021 . It was dismissed on 31.01.2023. 14. Mr.Suryanarayanan points out that a civil appeal preferred to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.205 of 2025 came to be allowed on 07.01.2025. The Supreme Court had set aside the orders of the Division Bench, learned single Judge and the order of the Inspector General of Registration. It had specifically restored the order of the District Registrar approving the amalgamation of the third party with the landlord. Hence, he pleads in the light of the Supreme Court order, the very basis, on which impleading application had been presented, does not exist. Consequently, he seeks for the civil revision petition to be allowed. 15. Per contra, Mr.D.Veerasekaran points out that the property had been purchased by Mr.E.V.Ramasamy Naicker in the early 1930 and he had created the third party society by registering the same on the file of the Sub-Registrar at Salem in Registration No.6 of 1957. He pleads that this society, which is the owner of the property and that the landlord, has no right, title or interest over the same. He adds that the order of the Supreme Court has restored the order of amalgamation, but the right of the society to file a suit cannot be taken away, as admittedly the Inspector General of Registration is not a Civil Court to declare right, title and interest over the property. 16. He adds that the order of the Supreme Court has restored the order of amalgamation, but the right of the society to file a suit cannot be taken away, as admittedly the Inspector General of Registration is not a Civil Court to declare right, title and interest over the property. 16. I have considered the submissions of both sides. I have carefully gone through the entire records. 17. Here is the case, where an impleading application has been filed in the rent control proceedings. It is the case of the landlord that it is the lessor and the 2 nd respondent is the lessee. In this proceeding, the tenant has raised a dispute as regards title. The scope of an enquiry in a rent control proceeding is limited. The learned Rent Controller can either give a finding that the denial of title is bona fide or mala fide. If the denial of title by the tenant is found to be a bona fide one, then the rent control petition has to be dismissed and the landlord should be directed to resort to the Civil Court for appropriate remedies. In case, the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that the denial of title by the tenant is mala fide, then he has to order eviction. In such a proceeding, as the scope of enquiry is only on the defence that is raised by the tenant, the learned Rent Controller cannot deal with the issues of title. 18. The plea that has been raised by the third party is that it is the owner of the property and the landlord is not the owner of the property. A reading of the affidavit in paragraph – 4 shows that the third party has relied upon the proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration dated 19.06.2013. The order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.205 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025 has set aside the order of the Inspector General of Registration on the basis of which the third party had filed an application to implead itself. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration or by this Court in W.P.No.21277 of 2013 , dated 13.01.2020 or that of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1980 of 2021 dated 31.01.2023. Hence, no reliance can be placed upon the order passed by the Inspector General of Registration or by this Court in W.P.No.21277 of 2013 , dated 13.01.2020 or that of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1980 of 2021 dated 31.01.2023. Paragraph – 12 of the Supreme Court judgment has set aside all these orders and has restored the order of amalgamation, dated 08.09.1998. 19. In the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court, I am not in a position to sustain the order of impleading passed by the learned Trial Judge. 20.I would also look at this in an other angle. In case, the third party society were to continue in the rent control proceedings, then the landlord would invite the learned Rent Controller to declare that it is the owner of the property and the third party would have set up a counter claim to title. The learned Rent Controller cannot deal with such issues. In rent control proceedings, the learned Rent Controller is bound by the four corners of the Rent Control Act and cannot sail away from the same. If disputes relating to title were to be decided by the learned Rent Controller, the order would be a nullity. This position of law is no longer res integra. It has been settled by this Court in Annamalai and another v. The Official Receiver and another , Tiruvannamalai, 1996 (1) MLJ 47 . Therefore, on both the grounds, the civil revision petition has to succeed. The order of the Rent Controller in I.A.No.32 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.27 of 2014 dated 09.07.2018 is set aside. 21. As I have allowed the revision on the ground that neither the Rent Controller nor the Inspector General of Registration have the jurisdiction to deal with the issues of title, it is left open to the third party society to take appropriate proceedings to declare that it is the owner of the property. 22.With the above observations, the civil revision petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.