This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Nagaon allowing the petition filed by the defendant No. 2 to implead one Wahidur Rahman, heirs of one Rejaur Rahman as defendants. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of Munsirl Nagaon against the defendant-opposite patties for ejectment and recovery of arrears rent. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit premises was sold to him by Faizur Rahman and Habibur Rahman who were the owners of the said premises and whose title was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 266 of 1953. The aforesaid vendors also informed the defendant opposite party No. 1 who was their tenant to attorn to the plaintiff who accordingly dl I at for a to the plaintiff-petitioner and became his tenant by attunement. The defendant opposite party No. 2 was inducted the suit premises by defendant No. 1 and in the suit filed for ejectment both of them were made parties. 3. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit along with the defendant No. I. He however, filed separate written statement alleging that he was tenant under Rejaur (since deceased) and Wahidur. He also filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading the heirs of Rejaur and Wahidur as parties. By his pleadings the defendant No. 2 thus denied that he was a tenant under the plaintiffs. The plain tiff-petitioner objected to the petition under Order 1 Rule 10. The learned Munsiff, however, by the impugned order allowed the petition. By the present revision petition the aforesaid order passed by the learned Munsiff under Order 1 Rule 10 has been challenged by the plaintiff. 4. Heard Mr. J. N. Sanni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. The learned Munsiff, however, by the impugned order allowed the petition. By the present revision petition the aforesaid order passed by the learned Munsiff under Order 1 Rule 10 has been challenged by the plaintiff. 4. Heard Mr. J. N. Sanni, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. Sarma submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff being an ejectment suit the only fact the plaintiff is required to establish is whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between tli3 plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and whether the defendant No. 2 is a sub-tenant under the defendant No. 1 and, as such, bound by the decree that may be pissed against defendant No. I. For deciding the aforesaid, it is not necessary to add any other person from whom the defendant No, 2 claimed to have tenancy as defendants. 5. Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the petition under Order 1 Rule 10 is in the interest of justice and does not in any way prejudice the plaintiff. It was, therefore, submitted that the said order should not be interfered by this Court. 6. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the order passed by the learned Munsiff. True it is that power has been conferred on the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to order at any stage of the proceeding that the name of any party may be shown as plaintiff or defendant. But, the exercise of this power is subject to a condition i.e. that the Court is satisfied that the presence of such party before the Court may be necessary in order to enable it effectively and com­pletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In this case the issues involved relates to ejectment of a tenant and recovery of arrear of rent. The decision thereon will depend, inter alia, on the proof of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No.l. If the defendant does not admit the tenancy, he may do so. The plaintiff will have to prove the same by adducing necessary evidence. The decision thereon will depend, inter alia, on the proof of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant No.l. If the defendant does not admit the tenancy, he may do so. The plaintiff will have to prove the same by adducing necessary evidence. But for that purpose, it is not necessary to add any person as party to the suit who according to the defendant is his landlord. It is not necessary to add such defendant in an ejectment suit simpliciter to effectively decide the dispute. The learned trial Court did not consider the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 in the correct perspective and acted erroneously in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 7. The revision petition, is allowed. No order as to costs.