1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1785 OF 2010 Dagdu Mahadeo Gaikwad & others ...Petitioners vs. Amarsingh Gurmelsingh Garewal & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rahul Kadam for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners who are third parties made an application for impleadment in the pending appeal arising out of the decree passed in the suit for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court. 2 It is obvious that the court vested with jurisdiction under section 33 of the said Act of 1999 cannot decide the issue of title. Section 35 of the said Act of 1999 specifically provides that notwithstanding the decree passed by the Court exercising jurisdiction under section 33 of the said Act of 1999, even a party to the suit can file a suit in the competent Civil Court to establish his title. The present petitioners are the third parties. It is obvious that the findings recorded in the suit as well as in the Appeal will not bind the petitioners. Hence no fault can be found with the impugned order by which the application made by the petitioners for impleadment was rejected. The petition is rejected. JUDGE