In an eviction suit, only the landlord and tenant are necessary parties, and the question of title is not relevant.

JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri V.K. Baranwal, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C, Jaunpur in S.C.C. Suit No. 01/2005 (Manohar vs. Matloob), whereby an application 22Ka filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment in S.C.C. Suit No. 01/2005, has been rejected. The petitioners also seek to challenge the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the District Judge, Jaunpur in S.C.C. Revision No. 157 of 2017 in terms of which the earlier order has been affirmed.

3. Record of the case indicates that the petitioners have sought their impleadment by asserting themselves to be cosharers of the property in question. The courts below have rejected the application filed by the petitioners for the reason that in summary proceedings relating to eviction, the question of title is not required to be gone into. It has been left open to the petitioners to agitate the issue regarding title by initiating appropriate proceedings.

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 coowner/cosharer to the proceedings is not essential as eviction proceedings can normally be decided on merits in absence of such coowner/cosharer. 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 landlord (plaintiff) in such suit is required to plead and prove only two things to enable him to claim a decree for eviction against his tenant from the tenanted suit premises. First, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and second, the grounds on which the plaintiff landlord has sought defendant tenant's eviction under the Rent Act exists. When these two things are proved, the eviction suit succeeds.

11.3. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is no