JUDGMENT : D.S. Sinha, J. This Civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called the 'ACT' is directed against the order dated 10th January 1992, passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Lalitpur in JSC No. 9 of 1990 between Kranti Kumar and Suresh Kumar Kanchan, whereby the application of the applicant and opposite party No. 3 for their impleadment in the suit, under Order I, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff opposite party No. 1 filed the suit praying for a decree of ejectment against the defendant-opposite party No. 2 on the basis of alleged landlord-tenant relationship in respect of a shop The applicant and the opposite party No. 3 filed an application for their impleadment asserting that the shop in suit was a joint Hindu Family property wherein the plaintiff-opposite-party No. 1 had only one sixth share and they had two third share. According to the applicant and the opposite party No. 3, their presence in the suit was necessary because they also were the co-owners of the property in suit. 3. Sri Satish Chandra Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, contends that in view of the fact that the applicant and the opposite party No. 3 also are the co-sharers of the shop in question, the court below' acted contrary to law in not ordering their impleadment to the suit. 4. Rule 10 (2) of Order I of the Code permits the court to order the name of any of the following two categories of persons to be added as party to a suit (a) person "who ought to have been joined" or (b) person "whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit." And the name of none else can be ordered to be added to the suit, either as plaintiff or as defendant. 5. Person who ought to be joined as party to a suit is the person whose presence is indispensable for granting an effective decree. 5. Person who ought to be joined as party to a suit is the person whose presence is indispensable for granting an effective decree. Such a person is a necessary party Person whose presence may enable the court to effectually and completely decide and dispose of all the questions involved in the suit is the person "whose presence before the court may be necessary" and such a person is a proper party. 6. Person having direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit alone can be necessary party or a proper party. Indeed, court has no jurisdiction to direct the name of any person to be added to the suit unless it is established that such a person ought to have been joined, or his presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication and settlement of all the questions involved in the suit. To be precise, court is duty bound to investigate and find out as to whether the person, whose name is sought to be added as a party to the suit, is a proper or necessary party before ordering his impleadment. 7. In a suit where the relief sought is a decree for ejectment of a tenant and the foundation for the relief is landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant a person claiming himself to be a co-sharer in the property in question is neither necessary nor a proper party inasmuch as in such a suit the title or ownership of the property is not the subject matter of the suit in which the co-sharer may have an interest. Likewise, for passing an effective decree of ejectment against the tenant at the behest of a co-sharer-plaintiff, if the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the defendant is pleaded and proved, the presence of the other co-sharer is not a condition precedent. 8. The grant or refusal of the relief of ejectment claimed in the suit is dependant upon the establishment of relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and defendant opposite party No. 2. Nothing else is the subject matter of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 can succeed only if he is able to prove that he is the landlord of the shop in dispute and the defendant-opposite-party No. 2 is a tenant therein on his behalf. Nothing else is the subject matter of the suit. The suit of the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 can succeed only if he is able to prove that he is the landlord of the shop in dispute and the defendant-opposite-party No. 2 is a tenant therein on his behalf. For the purpose of determination of the controversy as to whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 and defendant-opposite-party No. 2, the presence of the applicant and opposite party No. 3 cannot be said to be necessary in any manner. Likewise, the presence of the applicant and opposite party No. 3 is not necessary in the capacity of a proper party either inasmuch as none of their rights are to be adjudicated upon in the suit. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the court is clearly of the opinion that in rejecting the prayer of the applicant and opposite party No. 3 for their impleadment in the suit by means of the order impugned herein the court did not commit any such illegality which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act and it will be clearly wrong to interfere with the order. The revision lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.