JUDGMENT 1. This Rule was obtained against an order dated the 18th, November, 1976 passed by the learned Sixth Judge in the City Civil Court at Calcutta in ejectment suit No. 1435 of 1975. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for ejectment and for mesne profit against the defendant No.1 who was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect of one room in premises No. 33, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Calcutta, inter alia, on ground of default of payment of rent. The opposite party No.2 filed an application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as stranger stating inter alia that the tenancy from its inception stood in the name of opposite party No. 1. He used to live jointly and in joint mess with the said defendant. It was further stated by defendant No.2 that the dispute arose between the two brothers in respect of some joint business. The learned Judge found that the tenancy from the inception was in the name of the petitioner's brother i.e. defendant No.1, but as the petitioner stated that from the inception of the tenancy he had been residing with his family members along with the defendant who was elder brother and karta, the presence of the petitioner was considered necessary. He allowed the application by adding him as a party defendant. The said order is challenged in this rule. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, (Mr. Dutta appearing with him) contended that the order was bad mainly on two grounds. Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the court may add a party as a defendant when his presence may be necessary "in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit". In the present case the suit was filed by a landlord against the tenant. The plaintiff proceeded on the basis of a contract, but the third party, who sought to be impleaded under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code, sought to set up an "equitable right" flowing from status as a member of the family. The equity that is sought to be set up was against the other defendant primarily. In this connection a case reported in AIR 1977 Note 65 (Pat) was cited. The equity that is sought to be set up was against the other defendant primarily. In this connection a case reported in AIR 1977 Note 65 (Pat) was cited. It was held there by a Division Bench of that court that addition of parties ii not one of initial jurisdiction but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. As there was failure to appreciate the relevant circumstances. it was held to be an exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. Another case cited was Pravat Chandra Giri v. Amulya Chandra Bhaduri & Ors. reported on AIR 1917 Cal. 340. in which it was held that a third party ought not to be made a party to a suit for rent so as to convert a simple suit for arrears of rent into one for determination of title to the property in respect of which the rent is claimed. Mr. Mukherjee also relied on another decision reported in 1977(1) CLJ 186 (Jagat Enterprise v. Anup Kumar Daw & Ors.). In the said case a Division Bench of this Court held that in a suit for eviction of the lessee, a sub-lessee who had not been impleaded as a party in such suit, had no right to apply for being added as a necessary party in that suit for the purpose of asserting his independent right or statutory right, if he has any. It was observed that it would be open to the sub-lessee to challenge the ejectment decree passed against the lessee in appropriate proceeding. 4. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing to oppose the rule, submitted that the learned judge was quite correct in adding his client as a party because he had an equitable interest in the matter. He cited a case reported in AIR 1968 Mad. 142 (G.M. V. Krishnamachari v. M.D. Dhanalakshmi Ammal & Ors.). That was a suit for partition in which a stranger applied for impleading himself as a defendant, his case being that the plaintiff had entered into a written agreement of sale with him agreeing to convey a certain house for a certain sum and in pursuance thereof some money had been paid and there was an agreement for conveying of the property. It would appear that the decision was in a partition suit. It would appear that the decision was in a partition suit. As early as in 1922 it was held by this court in 35 CLJ 530 (Annapurna Debya v. Golapmani Debya & Ors.) that all persons who have an interest in the partition are proper parties and matters in controversy amongst persons so interested in the partition must be decided in the suit. The said principle so far as the partition suits are concerned are well-settled, but unfortunately the same do not help Mr. Mitra's client. As already noted the interest that is claimed by his client flowing from the status as member of the joint family is based on no contractual relationship with the landlord. 5. Normally the plaintiff as the dominus litis has a choice both as regards the forum and course of action. It is for him to choose whom he will make parties. It is for him to decide what relief he will ask or what would be the frame of the suit. After obtaining a decree it may turn out that the same will not be effective so far as the other defendants are concerned. In that event a fresh suit may have to be filed. That is a risk which the plaintiff has to take. In the absence of compelling reasons the court should not allow a stranger to be impleaded as a party. As noted earlier the guiding principle for the court is to see whether the matter in controversy can be effectually and completely adjudicated without his presence. From the aforesaid test it is not clear how the presence of the petitioner is at all necessary. 6. In view of the circumstances noted above, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee. The petitioner, therefore, succeeds. The Rule is made absolute and the impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.