JUDGMENT This application has been filed by the plaintiffs. It arises out of an order passed by the trial court refusing the plaintiffs prayer to delete the names of defendants nos. 2 to 5 from the plaint. This application has been opposed in this court only by defendant no. 2. The relevant facts are as follows:. 2. The plaintiffs have filed an eviction suit for evicting defendant no. 1 from the disputed premises, for default of payment of rent and the plaintiffs have also asked for certain arrears of rent. The plaintiffs have alleged that according to some earlier allegations of defendants 3 and 5, half the interest in the disputed property had been sold to defendant no.2. It is on this ground that the plaintiff had impleaded defendants nos. 2 to 5, without claiming any relief against them. In Paragraph 13 of the plaint it has been specifically mentioned that the defendants, other than defendant no. 1, had been made parties to avoid any future objections and no relief was being sought against them. It appears that subsequently defendants 2 to 5 had challenged the valuation of the suit and by order dated the 4th of February, 1967, the trial court had held that the suit was not properly valued. The plaintiffs had come up to this Court against that order in Civil Revision No. 22l of 1967 and dismissing that petition this Court stated that the plaintiffs were at liberty to amend their plaint by expunging the names of defendants 2 to 5 from the category of defendants. It was observed that if such a petition was filed and allowed, the court below will undoubtedly consider the question of valuation of the suit and the sufficiency of the court fee paid thereon. Apparently, after this observation of this Court that the plaintiffs now desire to expunge- the names of defendants 2 to 5 from the plaint. 3. The learned Munsif has refused the plaintiffs' prayer by stating that the plaintiffs' right to receive rent from defendant no. 1 will be a matter of adjudication in the suit and by expunging defendants nos. 2 to 5 the plaintiffs wished to get an exparte decision on that matter, which would prejudice defendants nos. 2 to 5. 3. The learned Munsif has refused the plaintiffs' prayer by stating that the plaintiffs' right to receive rent from defendant no. 1 will be a matter of adjudication in the suit and by expunging defendants nos. 2 to 5 the plaintiffs wished to get an exparte decision on that matter, which would prejudice defendants nos. 2 to 5. The learned Munsif has also said that no useful purpose will be served by expunging defendants 2 to 5 as they may come up again under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading them as party defendants. With respect to the order passed by this Court in the civil revision, mentioned above, the learned Munsif has stated that there was no order passed by this Court for deleting the names of defendants 2 to 5 and the matter was left to the discretion of the trial court. 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the facts of the case the court below was in error in not permitting the plaintiffs to delete the names of defendants nos. 2 to 5 from the plaint. It is urged that in view of the observation of this court passed in the civil revision, mentioned above, the learned Munsif was bound to delete the names of these defendants. Learned counsel for defendant no. 2 has contended that his client was, at least, a proper party in this litigation, and, therefore the trial court cannot delete the names of defendants nos. 2 to 5, or of defendant no. 2 in particular, from the plaint. On the second question argued by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the interpretation of the order passed by this Court in the civil revision, I cannot hold that the learned Munsif has erred. But, for the reasons given below, I must hold that the learned Munsif has refused to exercise his jurisdiction in not deleting the names of defendants 2 to 5. 5. In my opinion, the reasons given by the learned Munsif are wrong. As stated above, the learned Judge has stated that the plaintiffs' right to receive rent from defendant no. 1 will be a matter of adjudication in this suit and an expunction of the names of defendants 2 to 5 would result in the plaintiffs getting an exparte decision on this point. As stated above, the learned Judge has stated that the plaintiffs' right to receive rent from defendant no. 1 will be a matter of adjudication in this suit and an expunction of the names of defendants 2 to 5 would result in the plaintiffs getting an exparte decision on this point. This reasoning is wrong on the pleadings of the parties. In Paragraph 11 of the written statement of defendant no. 1, he has admitted that he was the tenant of the plaintiffs. The only question raised in defence in that paragraph is that the defendant denied the plaintiffs' claim to rent. In Paragraph 21 of the written statement of defendant no. 2 all that has been stated is that defendants nos. 3 and 5 had 8 annas interest in the property and they were in joint possession and they used to get rent to the extent of half to which they were entitled from plaintiff no. 2. This is the exact stand taken by defendants nos. 3 and 5 in Paragraph 14 of their written statement. The same stand has been taken by defendant no. 4. Therefore, it is clear that there is no denial by defendant no. 1 that the plaintiffs were not his landlords. In these circumstances, retention of defendants nos. 2 to 5, without claiming any relief against them, is not at all necessary, if the plaintiffs desire to proceed with their suit in the absence of these defendants. Further, the reason given by the learned Munsif that these defendants may again come for being impleaded as defendants under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, is irrelevant at this stage. If they do so, there is no doubt that the question will be considered according to law. Learned counsel for defendant no. 2 has relied upon the cases of (1) Baikuntha Kumar Shil V. Sarat Chandra Nath (A.I.R 1925 Calcutta, 1257) and (2) Razia Begum V. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum' (A. I. R 1958 Supreme Court, 886). It is urged that defendant no. 2 is, at least, a proper party as he has an interest in the subject matter of the suit. I do not think that this contention is valid. The subject matter of the present suit is the right of the plaintiffs to realise rent from defendant no. 1, a tenant, whose tenancy is admitted by that defendant. 2 is, at least, a proper party as he has an interest in the subject matter of the suit. I do not think that this contention is valid. The subject matter of the present suit is the right of the plaintiffs to realise rent from defendant no. 1, a tenant, whose tenancy is admitted by that defendant. No relief has been claimed against defendants 2 to 5, and, therefore, I do not think that these decisions can be of any assistance to defendant no. 2. Learned counsel for this defendant has further relied upon the case of (3) Rameshwer Bhagat V. Thakur Jeban Narayan Singh (A. I. R. 1937 Patna 49) But that decision is also quite distinguishable. That was a case of an intervenor coming up in a rent suit The principle decided is quite foreign to the principle which falls for decision in the instant case. In the present case, the contention raised by defendant no.2 may convert an eviction suit into a suit based on the title of defendant no. 2 and retention of defendants nos. 2' to 5 will rather complicate matters than solving the dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1. Further, reliance has been placed on (4) Civil Revision No. 1394 of 1966 decided on the 21st of August, 1967. But that was a case of a partition suit in which the sole defendant had sold his interest to strangers. Learned counsel for defendant no. 2 has contended on the basis of this civil revision that there is no duty cast upon the court to find out as to who is to pay court fee in the given circumstances of any particular case. I do not think that this question fal1s for decision at all. The present case is one of a suit between the landlord and tenant and the definition of landlord can be gathered from Section 2 (el) of Bihar Act III of 1947. The present plaintiffs fulfil this definition and I do not think that the learned Munsif was right in refusing to expunge the names of defendants nos. 2 to 5, when the plaintiffs themselves do not wish to proceed against them. 6. In these circumstances, the application is allowed, the order of the court below is reversed and defendants nos. 2 to 5 must be expunged from the plaint. 2 to 5, when the plaintiffs themselves do not wish to proceed against them. 6. In these circumstances, the application is allowed, the order of the court below is reversed and defendants nos. 2 to 5 must be expunged from the plaint. This order will be subject to the plaintiffs paying a sum of Rs. 55/- to Mr. Bishwanath Agarwal on or before the 5th of February, 1968. If this amount is not paid to Mr. Agarwal then this application will stand dismissed without further reference to the bench. If this amount is paid, the trial court will expunge the names of defendants nos. 2 to 5 from the plaint. If any question arises, with regard to the payment of the amount to Mr. Agarwal, in the court below, then the plaintiffs will be at liberty to file the receipt there. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioners states that he will ask the learned Munsif to allow him to amend relief no. B by making the word "defendants" as "defendant". This is only a formal amendment and it should be allowed by the learned Munsif. Application allowed.