Tenants are not parties interested in a dispute regarding title to the property between their landlord and a third party.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision has come up before us for dispose on a reference by Shiv dayal J. before whom a first came up for hearing.

( 2 ) THE material facts are that the opponents Nos. 1 to 4 instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Class 1, Khandwa, against the petitioner Fida Hussain and the opponents Nos. 5 and 6 Gehimal and Totaram for possession of a plot described in Schedule A attached to the plaint. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they were the owners of the plot, and that on or about 5th March 1957 Gehimal and Tolaram wrongfully and forcibly took possession of the plot; and that when they were asked to restore the possession of the land, they refused to do so according that they had taken it on rent from the petitioner Fida Hussain.

( 3 ) GEHIMAL and Tolaram contested the suit by pleading that Fida Hussain was the owner of the land and that no had let out the property to them. The petitioner also cent-ed the plaintiffs' title. He, however, added that he has leased out a major portion of the plot to one Meghraj Sindhi who had sub-let the same to the opponents Gehimal and Tolaram and that he being the owner of the plot was entitled to receive the rent in respect of the LAND from Meghraj or compensation or damages from Gehimal and Tolaram. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial judge framed, inter alia, the following issues:

"1. Issue 1: Whether the disputed plot fully describes in Schedule-A attached with the plaint is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs? 2. Issue 3 (a): Whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as partners of the jawahar Oil Mill took the suit property on lease from defendant No. 3? 3. Issue 6: Whether defendant No. 3 himself is the sole and exclusive owner of the suit land and the plaintiffs have no title to it?"

During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs and the petitioner filed an application embodying their agreement to refer the first and the third issues stated above to arbitration. Accordingly, the trial Court made an order on 26th June 1959 referring the two issues for decision to an arbitrator appointed for the purpose. The defendants Gehimal and Tolaram, who were present through a counsel on the dates when the application for reference to arbitration was filed and when the order referring the two issues to arbitration was passed, did not oppose the reference to arbitration. The arbitrator gave his award on 22nd December 1959. When the award was filed, the petitioner moved the court for setting aside the award alleging several acts of misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The objections were overruled- by the trial Court. Thereupon Fida Hussain preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, khandwa, against the order of the Civil Judge refusing to set aside the award. The learn. District Judge dismissed the appeal. Fida Hussain then preferred this revision petition. In the revision petition the applicant raised for the first time the objection that the award was a nullity inasmuch as Gehimal and Tolaram were parties interested in the dispute between the plaintiffs and the petitioner with regard to the title to the property and as they did not agree that this dispute should be referred to arbitration, there was no valid reference to arbitration.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge was inclined to think that Gehimal and Tolaram were parties interested in the question of title to the property. According to him, if the decision on the issues referred to arbitration was that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land in suit, then Gehimal and Tolaram would be prejudiced seriously, whether they were in occupation of the land as tenants of Fida Hussain or as sub-tenants of Meghraj Sindhi, and that if Fida Hussain was found to be the owner, then the plaintiffs could not get a decree for possession of the land in question. After taking this view, the learned Single Judge proceeded to consider the questions:

"1. Whether an objection as to the validity of the r