YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur in SCC Suit No. 30 of 2009 (Taj Mohammad vs. Masqoor Ali) whereby the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur in SCC Revision No. 40 of 2018, whereby the order passed by the trial court has been affirmed.

3. The property in question is a shop bearing Municipal No. 11/7882 situate at Mohalla Pulkambohan, Mohammad Ali Complex, Taj Market, Saharanpur. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by Respondent No.1 Taj Mohammad against Respondent No.2, Masqoor Ali who happens to be the husband of the petitioner.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the SCC Suit, the property in question was purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.2010. It is also submitted that at the time when the property was purchased two other suits being Original Suit No. 812 of 2003 and Original Suit No. 667 of 2010 were also pending; subsequently both the suits were dismissed.

5. Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the defendant, who happens to be the husband, has already filed his written statement admitting his status as tenant.

6. The trial court has rejected the application for impleadment on the ground that in a suit for eviction where relationship between landlord and tenent has been admitted by the parties, any application raising a question of title could not be gone into. Taking into consideration the fact that the suit is being contested by the defendant who happens to be the husband of the petitioner herein and that the relationship of landlord-tenant had been admitted by the parties, the revisional court has held that there was no error in the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for impleadment.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 has supported the orders passed by the courts below and has submitted that the impleadment application filed by the petitioner, who is the wife of the defendant-tenant, has rightly been rejected.

8. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment in the case of Kanaklata Das and others Vs. Naba Kumar Das and others, (2018) 2 SCC 352 for the proposition that a third person claiming title cannot get his rights adjudicated in eviction proceedings.

9. As regards the relevance of the issue of title of the landlord in an eviction suit under rent laws it is fairly well settled that the impleadment of co-owner/co-sharer to the proceedings is not essential as eviction proceedings can normally be decided on merits in absence of such co-owner/co-sharer. In an eviction suit filed by the landlord, only landlord and tenant are necessary parties and in view thereof title of landlord in an eviction suit is not relevant. If the landlord fails to prove his title but proves relationship of landlord and tenant, and proves existence of any ground pleaded for eviction then his suit would succeed. On the other hand, if the landlord proves his title but fails to prove relationship of landlord and tenant, then his suit would fail.

10. Moreover, the plaintiff in the proceedings, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead any third party to proceedings unless that third party proves that he is necessary party and without his presence the suit cannot be proceeded with or can be decided effectively.

11. In this context an application for impleadment by a third party asserting right of owner-ship in the suit premises, is liable to be rejected for the reason that such person would neither be a necessary nor proper party to eviction