A third-party title dispute does not require impleadment in an admitted tenancy eviction suit.

The respondent-plaintiff instituted Small Cause Suit No. 41 of 2023 seeking ejectment, arrears of rent and mesne profits against the revisionists in respect of a shop situated at 9, Mukherjee Marg, Rishikesh.

The plaintiff relied on rent agreements dated 31 August 2012 and 31 July 2014, under which the revisionists occupied the premises and acknowledged the landlord–tenant relationship.

In their written statement, the revisionists admitted the existence of the rent agreements but alleged that title to the property vested in Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust and that a title dispute existed between the Trust and the plaintiff.

During the stage of the revisionists’ evidence, they filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the Trust as a necessary party.

The Trial Court rejected the application on 13 April 2026, holding that the Trust was not a necessary party to the small cause suit.

The revisionists challenged that order under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.

The Court applied Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act and Order I Rule 10 CPC.

Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, 2018 (2) SCC 352, establishes that, in an eviction suit, the landlord and tenant are ordinarily the only necessary parties; the landlord must prove the landlord–tenant relationship and the statutory ground for eviction; title to the property is generally not germane; and a plaintiff, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead a third party unless that party is necessary for an effective adjudication.

A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision.

The Court also referred to Nak Engineering Company Private Limited v. Tarun Keshri chand Shah, 2026 (3) SCC 631, as reiterating these principles.

The rent agreements signed by the revisionists established that the parties acknowledged a landlord–tenant relationship.

Consequently, the material questions in the small cause suit were whether such relationship existed and whether the grounds for eviction and related monetary relief were proved.

The alleged title dispute between the plaintiff and the Trust was collateral to that relationship and did not require adjudication for determining the suit.

The revisionists also failed to show that the Trust claimed to be their landlord or that its presence was indispensable for an effective decision.

Applying the principle that title is not germane in an eviction proceeding where the landlord–tenant relationship is established, the Court held that the Trust was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

The contention concerning payment of Rs. 17 lakhs did not justify impleadment and was not accepted as a ground to interfere with the Trial Court’s order.

It held that Baba Kali Kamli Wala Trust was not a necessary party to the small cause suit because the landlord–tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the revisionists was admitted and established, and the alleged title dispute was irrelevant to the suit’s adjudication.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s order dated 13 April 2026, the High Court dismissed the civil revision.