HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1653 of 2011 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 25.01.2011, passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.450 of 2010 in R.C.No.379 of 2008, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., seeking to implead the petitioner-proposed respondent as respondent No.4 in the main R.C. was dismissed. The said R.C. was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for eviction of respondents 3 to 5 herein- tenants from the schedule premises. In the said R.C., the petitioner herein sought to be impleaded as respondent No.4 on the ground that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property in question, which was gifted to her by way of oral Hiba and Memorandum of gift executed in his favour. The said case of the petitioner herein was denied by respondents 1 and 2 herein by filing counter. As regards the title of the property in question, admittedly, civil litigations i.e., O.S.No.960 of 2003 and C.C.C.A.No.249 of 2008 before the High Court are pending between the parties. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that when a third party raises a dispute as to the title of the landlord, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide whether the landlord has title to the premises or not. The powers of the Rent Controller in the R.C. filed for eviction of the tenant are very limited. He is competent to decide only as regards the bona fide title of the landlord, if the same is disputed by the tenant. Hence, the Rent Controller is absolutely right in dismissing the said application. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 15th July 2011 DR