JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Divakar Rai Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Muzaffar Nagar on Application No.86ka under Order I Rule 10 CPC in SCC Suit No.08 of 2013 (Bala Ji Builders & Ors. Vs. 82nd (Bayasi) Uttar Pradesh Vahini NCC Muzaffarnagar & Anr. in terms of which the impleadment application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

3. Record of the case reflects that the revisionists had sought impleadment in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents (first set) against the defendant-respondents (second set) for eviction and arrears of rent, on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed on 13.02.1980. It is not disputed that with regard to the title sought to be asserted by the revisionists on the basis of the aforementioned sale deed, original suits i.e. O.S. No.1058 of 2008 and O.S. No.839 of 2006 are pending. Taking notice of the aforementioned facts and the well settled principle of law that questions of title sought to be raised by a third party cannot be gone into in an eviction suit which is essentially a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, the trial court has rejected the impleadment application filed by the revisionist after observing that the title which the revisionist seeks to assert would be subject to the result of the original suits which are admittedly pending, and the decree which may be passed in the small cause suit would have no bearing on the question of title which was sought to be asserted.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. In this context an application for impleadment by a third party asserting right of ownership 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 proceedings, and in his absence the suit can be decreed or dismissed on merits. The questions of title or ownership can neither be decided nor can be made subject matter of determination in eviction proceedings.

7. In the case of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 352 the general principles relating to parties, pleadings and proof in an eviction suit under rent laws, particularly in context of coowned property, have been summarized. The observations made in the case of Kanaklata Das (supra) in this regard are as follows:

“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 which arose in this appeal. These principles are mentioned infra:

11.1. First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant.

11.2. Second, the la