JUDGMENT S.N. Sabay, J. - These two writ petitions and civil revision arise out of orders passed in application of Narendra Nath Srivastava for impleadment. As common questions arise, all the three cases are being disposed of by a common judgment, 2. The dispute relates to premises no. 194/1213, Lakshman Prasad Road, Gola Ganj, in the City of Lucknow which was purchased by Smt. Mota Devi, by means of a sale deed dated 9th January, 1957, executed by Ram Nath, who was an uncle of the applicant Narendra Nath. After purchasing the said premises, Smt. Mota Devi instituted suits for arrears of rent and ejectment under U.P. Act 13 of 1972, against the tenants, who were in occupation of the premises. The tenants also applied under Section 30 of the Act for depositing rent. It was directed by the learned Munsif North, Lucknow by order dated 30th April, 1982 that the rent shall be kept in deposit for the rightful claimant. 3. In the above mentioned circumstances, the application for impleadment was moved by Narendra Nath Srivastava on the ground that the disputed premises are ancestral property and Shiv Prasanna Nath, who was the common ancestor, was the original owner of the said premises. He had three sons; Krishna Dayal, Onkar Nath and Ram Nath and the applicant, who is the son of Onkar Nath, has acquired an interest by birth in the said premises. The applicant asserted that he should also be made a party as he is a coowner of the disputed property. The application was contested by Smt. Mota Devi who has traversed the allegations made by the applicant and has stated that she is the sole owner and landlady of the disputed premises. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Narendra Nath Srivastava has also filed a suit no. 163 of 1980, against Smt. Mota Devi and others for declaration of title in the Court of Civil Judge, Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow. 4. The application for impleadrnent has been allowed in S.C.C. Suit no. 57 of 1986, by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 18th September, 1986. He has observed that the applicant claims himself to be a coparcener and if he proves himself to be a coparcener, he shall have right to claim the money deposited by the defendant by way of rent of the property in dispute. 57 of 1986, by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 18th September, 1986. He has observed that the applicant claims himself to be a coparcener and if he proves himself to be a coparcener, he shall have right to claim the money deposited by the defendant by way of rent of the property in dispute. He has taken the view that in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to decide the dispute between the parties finally and effectively, it is just and proper to allow Impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, Against the above order, Smt. Mota Devi has tied Civil Revision No. 187 of 1986. 5. In the other suit no. PA 63 of 1986, which has given rise to Writ Petition No. 2050 of 1987, the application for impleadment has been rejected by the teamed Civil Judge, Mohan Lal Ganj by order dated 16th February, 1987. He has observed that the applicant had not adduced any evidence to show that he is a coowner of the disputed premises nor had cited any provision of law under which the direction may be issued by the Court to Smt. Mota Devi to admit Narendra Nath as a colandlord. Further, the proceedings are of similar nature and once declaration of title is made in favour of Narendra Nath in the regular suit filed by him, he can get appropriate relief claimed by him in regard to rent and ejectment against the tenants. In this view of the matter, it has been held that there is no justification to implead Narendra Nath. 6, In the third case S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1986, which has given rise to Writ Petition No, 5195 of 1938 also, the impleadment application has been rejected by the learned XIV Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 29th March, 1988. He has observed that the applicant has not challenged that Smt. Mota Devi is the landlady of the disputed premises on the basis of sate deed executed by Ram Nath. It is not open to a third party to raise question of title in the suit which has been filed by the landlady against the tenants for arrears of rent and ejectment. In support of this view, reliance has been placed on Pravat Kumar Misra v. Prafulla Chandra Misra, AIR 1977 Orissa, 183. It is not open to a third party to raise question of title in the suit which has been filed by the landlady against the tenants for arrears of rent and ejectment. In support of this view, reliance has been placed on Pravat Kumar Misra v. Prafulla Chandra Misra, AIR 1977 Orissa, 183. Since the question of ownership can be decided in the regular suit, the impleadment application has been rejected. 7. The principles governing impleadment of a party are embodied in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is indicated therein that a party may be either necessary party or proper party. A person, who ought to have been joined as party, is necessary party. This is so, because no effective decision can be given without his presence. A person is a proper party if his presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The impleadment of a party is a matter of judicial discretion of the Court which ought to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. All this has been highlighted in Udit Narain Singh Malpahaira v. Additional Member of Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 Supreme Court, 786 and Razia Begum v. Anwari Begum, AIR 1958 Supreme Court 886 8. Normally in a suit by a landlord against the tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment, a third party raising question of title is not a necessary party. This is the effect of the decisions in Pravat Kumar Misra v. Prafulla Chandra Misra (supra) and Shafiq Ahmad v. The Vth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1988 ALJ 612. But there may be cases where it may be proper to allow the application of a third party for impleadment. This has been recognised in Shafiq Ahmad's cafe wherein it has been observed that the facts of the case reported in AIR 1987 Bombay 276 were entirely different inasmuch as therein matter of title was to be gone into. 9. In the instant case the suit filed by Smt. Mota Devi is a suit by landlord (Landlady) against tenants for arrears of rent and ejectment. 9. In the instant case the suit filed by Smt. Mota Devi is a suit by landlord (Landlady) against tenants for arrears of rent and ejectment. Smt. Mota Devi claims to be the landlady of the disputed premises on the basis of the sale deed executed by Ram Nath in her favour and not on the basis of any contract entered into between herself and the tenants. If Narendra Nath is able to substantiate his claim that his father was a coowner alongwith Ram Nath then the right of Smt. Mota Devi to claim arrears of rent for the whole of the disputed premises and to other reliefs against the tenants is bound to be affected. Narendra Nath has already filed a title suit and if any decree is passed in his favour in that suit then it will have repercussion on the decree obtained by Smt. Mota Devi against the tenants in the suit filed by her and in case the decree for ejectment of the tenants is passed therein, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Under the circumstances, Narendra Nath appears to be a proper party whose presence may facilitate the adjudication of the controversy between the parties effectively and completely. The view taken by the learned IX Additional Judge in S.C.C. Suit no. 57 of 1986 cannot be regarded as erroneous and certainly the discretion exercised by him in directing the impleadment of Narendra Nath is not such as would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It is but proper that for the sake of parity Narendra Nath may be directed to be impleaded in the other two suits also. 10. For the above reasons Civil Revision No. 187 of 1986 is dismissed and the order for impleadment passed in S.C.C. Suit no. 57 of 1986 is confirmed and Writ Petitions nos. 2050 of 1987 and 5195 of 1988 are allowed. It is directed that Narendra Nath will be impleaded as a defendant in Suit no. R.A. 63 of 1986 & S.C.C. Suit no. 4 of 1986 & necessarysteps will be taken by the plaintiff in the two suits in that behalf. It is further directed that all the three suits will he heard and disposed of according to law alongwith Suit No. 163 of 1980, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow. 4 of 1986 & necessarysteps will be taken by the plaintiff in the two suits in that behalf. It is further directed that all the three suits will he heard and disposed of according to law alongwith Suit No. 163 of 1980, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow. Parties shall bear their own costs in this Court. (Revision allowed)