Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Srijan Mehrotra holding brief of Sri A.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.D. Saunder and Sri Rakesh Bagga, learned counsels for respondent No. 2.

2. It is noteworthy that no one appeared for respondent No. 1 namely M/s. Khanuja Finance Company. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Advocate has filed his counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1. On an information given to him, he denied having any instructions from respondent No. 1.

3. As the matter is pending for the last 14 years, this Court is not inclined to adjourn it any further.

4. The present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.4.2003 passed by XIIth Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar with a further prayer to dismiss the impleadment application 58C-2 filed by opposite party No. 1 in S.C.C. Suit No. 16 of 1999 (Sardar Dewan Singh v. Bishan Das Kataria).

5. The said suit had been filed by Sardar Dewan Singh, the petitioner herein against Bishan Das Kataria for ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent and recovery of possession. The said suit was contested by the defendant therein denying the landlord-tenant relationship and further that the actual landlord of the premises was M/s. Khanuja Finance Company. The premises in question was given on rent to the defendant by the said company. Further it was stated that the defendant had vacated the tenanted accommodation on 31.3.1998 and had delivered physical and vacant possession to the landlord namely M/s. Khanuja Finance Company. The petitioner/plaintiff denied the averments made in the written statement by filing a replication and disputed the rights of M/s. Khanuja Finance Company to let out the premises in question to the defendant. On 31.6.2002, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on behalf of M/s. Khanuja Finance Company, a partnership firm, the opposite party herein with the prayer to implead it in the Small Causes Suit for ejectment on the ground that the actual owner of the suit property was Sardar Khazan Singh and the shop was given to one Bishan Das Kataria in an agreement arrived between the applicant and Sri Bishan Das Kataria. This application 58C-2 was allowed vide order dated 22.4.2003 and the plaintiff/petitioner was directed to implead M/s. Khanuja Finance Company through its partner Sardar Kuldeep Singh son of Sardar Khazan Singh as defendant in the suit and time was granted to the newly impleadment defendant to file written statement. Aggrieved, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision.

6. The grounds to challenge the order of impleadment of opposite party No. 1 taken by the counsel for the petitioner are that the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed with the claim of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant (Bishan Das Kataria). The denial of title by the tenant would be a question which is to be addressed by the Small Causes Court on merits. However, a third party namely opposite party No. 1 has no right for impleadment in the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent inasmuch as he is neither necessary nor a proper party. In a Small Causes Suit, the limited jurisdiction of Court is to decide the question of landlord-tenant relationship and further whether the tenant is in default and the landlord is entitled to the decree of ejectment. In case of denial of title of the landlord, the necessary consequences will follow. However, this cannot be treated as a tool to include a third party in the suit by impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as it is not permissible for the S.C.C. Court to enter into and decide the disputed questions of title between the parties. The adjudication on the question of title requires leading of evidence and appreciation thereof as a regular suit by the Court, wherea