JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

Case called on. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Manish Tandon, appears on behalf of the respondent no.1.

3. Since the point involved is short and parties have exchanged affidavits, this Court proceeds to determine the petition on merits.

4. S.C.C. Suit No. 19 of 2006 was filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. In the said suit, the petitioner, who is a third party, has made an application seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The ground seeking impleadment is that he is owner of the demised premises to the extent of a half share. He has claimed title as a co-owner to the extent of half share with the plaintiff on the basis of an oral gift (Hiba) from one Smt. Nawab Jahan Begum. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 has refuted the petitioner's claim by filing objections. The second-respondent-tenant, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that he is a tenant in the demised premises. The suit is one for eviction brought on the relationship of a landlord-tenant between respondent nos.1 and 2.

5. The courts below have refused the petitioner's application for impleadment on the ground that suit is one instituted for eviction based on a landlord-tenant relationship, where a third party cannot be permitted to be impleaded.

6. This Court has perused the impugned orders and the materials on record. It is apparent from the plaint filed by the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit brought against the second respondent, the sole defendant to the suit, that the suit is one for ejectment and arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-respondent on the basis of a relationship of landlord and tenant vis-a-vis the demised premises. In the event, the petitioner, who is a third party, is permitted to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the Court would be called upon to adjudicate a title dispute inter se the petitioner and respondent no.1. If that were to happen, the rent suit would be converted into a title suit.

7. It is against the settled principle governing disposition of rent suits, that the cause of action cannot be enlarged so as to alter the scope of a rent suit to a title suit. Ex-hypothesi, no party can be impleaded who seeks to bring in a cause of action that would ultimately convert the rent suit into a title suit. This position of the law is beyond cavil, going by consistent authority.

8. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Shafiq Ahmad Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and Others, 1998 (2) ARC 329, where it has been held :

6. On the facts and circumstances narrated above it is apparent that there is no title dispute concerning the property in suit. It is a simple ejectment proceeding by a landlord against a tenant. Smt. Shakila has admittedly paid rent to Smt. Hamida Bano. The suit has been filed on the ground that the tenant is a defaulter whose tenancy has been terminated by the landlord through a notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the suit has to be decided on the interse relationship and conduct of the landlord and the tenant. The controversy as to whether there was or not any oral gift by the landlady Smt. Hamida Bano in favour of the petitioner will be absolutely foreign to the issues involved. Again, in view of the respective averments made by the petitioner and Smt. Hamida Bano it is more than apparent that while the petitioner claims through an oral gift, the said Hamida Bano refutes loudly the said allegation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that neither it will be in the interest of justice nor desirable for safeguarding the interest of parties to direct the impleadment of the petitioner as a plaintiff in the suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case reported in : AIR 1987 Bom 276. The facts of the said case were entirely different in as much as therein matter