Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-appellant Chandmal since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives instituted a suit for eviction against the non-applicants 1 and 2 on certain grounds. In his suit it is alleged that non-applicant Dulichand as a secretary of non-applicant No.2 Gramodyog Mandal, Neemuch had taken on rent the suit premises but for reasons alleged in the plaint the non-applicants were liable to be evicted. During the trial of the suit an application was made by the non-applicants in which it was inter alia alleged that the suit premises are now taken over by the tahsildar and unless the tahsildar and the State of Madhya Pradesh are made parties with these defendants the suit will not proceed. This application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that neither the tahsildar nor the State of Madhya Pradesh are necessary parties to this suit. The learned trial Judge, however, by the impugned order held that as prayed by the defendants, the tahsildar and the State of Madhya Pradesh are necessary parties to the suit and should be impleaded as defendants. Held : When the suit filed by the plaintiff is on the allegations that the defendants non-applicants 1 and 2 are the tenants and they are liable to be evicted on the grounds mentioned in the plaint, then it is for the plaintiff to decide as to whether any person other than the person who was a party to the agreement of lease should or should not be made a party to the suit for eviction. If the plaintiff succeeds and obtains a decree for eviction against non-applicants 1 and 2 and the decree is put in execution, the tahsildar may raise an objection or resist the execution of the decree. In that event it will be for the plaintiff to answer the objection raised by the tahsildar. However, looking to the allegations made in the plaint, there is no justification for directing the plaintiff to make any other person as the defendant in the suit as has been done by the impugned order. Revision allowed.