SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 4.9.2009 passed by Judge Small Causes Court in Suit No. 59 of 2004, Annexure-5 to the writ petition as well as dated 5.10.2009 passed by respondent no.1 in SCC Revision No. NIL of 2009 by which the application filed by the petitioners no. 1 and 2 to be impleaded as a party in the proceeding under Section 25 of the Judge Small Causes Court has been rejected. The facts as alleged in the writ petition are that petitioners no. 1, 2 and respondents no.3 to 5 claim themselves to be the owners of the property and respondents no.6 to 9 are the tenants. It is the case of the petitioners that initially the rent was being realized by respondents no. 3 to 5 and the receipts to that effect were being issued to the respondents no.6 to 9 and the share of rent was being distributed amongst the petitioners no.1 and 2 as well as respondents no.3 to 5. During pendency of the suit, an application was filed on behalf of the tenant-respondent that petitioners no.1 and 2 may be impleaded being co-owners of the property and they should be impleaded as one of the parties in the said proceeding. The said application was rejected. Then the petitioners no.1 and 2 made an application to be impleaded in the said proceeding as one of the parties claiming themselves to be the landlord but the said application was rejected on the ground that this is a proceeding regarding ejectment and arrears of rent against tenant-respondents no. 6 to 9. In case the petitioners are co-owners of the property, this question cannot be decided in the said proceeding because question of title and ownership cannot be decided in such proceeding. The said application was rejected-vide its order dated 4.9.2009 and the revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed holding therein that the question of title in view of legal pronouncement in the case of J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.R. Murali and another reported in AIR 2000 (2) SC 1061 cannot be decided in such proceeding as it would change the nature of litigation. Adjudication of the title is beyond the scope of the suit. Holding this the revisional court has dismissed the revision.
(3.) HAVE considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondents no. 2 and 3 to 5, they can file separate suit to get it decided that they are the owners and landlords of the property in question. In such proceeding which is based only on the question of arrears of rent and ejectment, the question of title and ownership cannot be decided. The Judge Small Causes Court cannot decide the question of title between the parties.;