The Act only allows the consideration of the landlord's entitlement to possession based on grounds for eviction, and the question of title cannot be decided under the Act.

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the District Judge, Jaunpur in Revision No. 3 of 2008 whereby the order dated 3.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jaunpur rejecting the impleadment application of the respondents no.2 and 3 has been set aside.

2. The petitioner is a landlord of the premises in dispute . A suit, being SCC suit no. 35 of 1982, for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the petitioner against the tenant respondent no. 1, Ram Pyare Singh on the ground of default in payment of the rent.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents no. 2 and 3, claiming themselves to be the landlord of the premises in dispute, filed an application under Order I rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. on 23.11.2006 seeking their impleadment in the said suit.

4. The petitioner filed his objection to the aforementioned impleadment application alleging therein that he is the owner and landlord of the property in dispute and the respondents no. 2 and 3 have no concern at all with the said property , as such they are not entitled to be impleaded as a party in the said suit. It was further pleaded that the impleadment application has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 at a very belated stage i.e. after 24 years of commencement of the suit proceeding in collusion with the tenant ? respondent no. 1.

5. The trial court, after considering the materials available on the record and hearing the respective parties, dismissed the impleadment application on 23.11.2007.

6. Being aggrieved with the above order, the respondents no. 2 and 3 filed a revision before the District Judge which was allowed by judgment and order dated 3.5.2008 by setting aside the judgement and order dated 23.11.2007 passed by the trial court . Hence, the present writ petition.

7. The impleadment application dated 23.11.2006 was filed by the respondents no. 2 and 3 merely on the basis of judgement and decree dated 18.9.1963 passed in the suit no. 14 of 1958, filed by the deity Sri Mahadeoji and others through Mutwalli Sri Bhagwan Das for a declaration that the property was the endowed property and for the demolition of unauthorized constructions made over some portion of the said property. The case of the respondents no. 2 and 3 was that they being owners of the disputed property are necessary and proper party and therefore they are entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the plaintiff petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the the District judge has acted illegally and transgressed his jurisdiction while allowing the impleadment application of the respondents no. 2 and 3 under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. in a rent suit proceeding. He further submitted that the respondents no. 2 and 3 can neither be said to be necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings. They, therefore, could not be joined as party in the proceedings under the Act . It was further submitted that the Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to decide the "title" to the property and the only question it has to consider is as to whether the "landlord" is entitled to possession on the grounds mentioned in the application for eviction or not. It was further submitted that it was not even the case of the respondents no. 2 and 3 that the petitioner was not entitled to rent. He further submits that the the impleadment application has been filed malafide in collusion with the sitting tenant after lapse of about 24 years of the suit proceeding without explaining the delay in filing the said impleadment application . It is further submitted that since the petitioner was not a party to the alleged suit no. 14 of 1958, the decree passed in that suit has no binding effect upon the petitioner and, moreover , the said judgment and decree dated 18.9.63 was never got executed by the respondents no. 2 and 3.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner,