A co-owner's presence is not necessary for a tenant eviction suit, thus the trial court's decision to exclude them is justified.

1. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein / plaintiff instituted a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against respondent No.4 / defendant herein. The suit was instituted on 5.4.2010. In course of trial, the plaintiffs / landlords have closed their evidence. Thereafter, on 19.1.2017 the petitioner herein filed an application under O.1 R.10 (2) of the CPC that he is co - owner of the suit house and therefore, he is necessary party in the said suit. Said application was opposed by the plaintiffs / respondents No.1 to 3. The trial Court by order dated 7.2.2017 rejected the said application. Thereafter, the petitioner repeated application under O.1 R.10(2) of the CPC for impleadment. The trial Court by order dated 1.3.2017 again rejected the same. Challenging both the orders, this writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

2. Mr.Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the proposed applicant / writ petitioner being co - owner of the suit property is not only proper but also necessary party and therefore, he is entitled to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit and therefore, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application holding that he is neither proper nor necessary party.

3. Mr.Ashok Soni, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, would submit that the petitioner is not co - owner of the suit property and unnecessarily in collusion with defendant No.4 to install the proceeding of suit for eviction the application has been filed for impleadment, which has rightly been rejected by the trial Court and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. In order to decide the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice O.1 R.10(2) of the CPC which states as under: -
'10(2) Court may strike out or add parties. - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.'

6. R.10 (2) of O.1 of the CPC permit the Court to order the name of any of the following two categories persons to be added as party to a suit (a) person ' who ought to have been joined' or (b) person ' whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit' and the name of none else can be ordered to be added to the suit, either as plaintiff or as defendant.

7. Person who ought to be joined as party to a suit is the person whose presence is indispensable for granting an effective decree. Such person is a necessary party. Person whose presence may enable the Court to effectually and completely decide and dispose of all the questions involved in the suit is the person' whose presence before the Court may be necessary' and such a person is a proper party.

8. Person having direct interest in the subject - matter of the suit alone can be necessary party or a proper party. Indeed, Court has no jurisdiction to direct the name of any person to be added to the suit unless it is established that such a person ought to have been jo