JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010, are aggrieved of order dated 28.11.2016 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010 by which application dated 29.09.2014 filed by the plaintiffs under section 15 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and application dated 29.09.2014 filed under Order VI Rule 16 read with Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC to struck-out the name of defendant no.3 have been allowed. 2. Briefly stated, Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010 has been instituted for a decree for eviction against the defendants in respect of schedule 'B' property and for a decree for khas possession to the plaintiffs of the said property. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves absolute owners in possession of the property comprised under Holding No.129 (New) and 155 (Old) of Ward No.6. They have pleaded that this property was acquired by the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 02.06.1966 and he came in possession over schedule 'A' property during his life time and after death of their father, the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 became owner of the schedule 'A' property. During the trial, after the plaintiffs examined one of their witnesses namely, Subash Ranjan Hore as P.W.1, the aforesaid applications were filed. The reason why the application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC was filed has been disclosed in paragraph no.3 of the said application. In this application, the plaintiffs have stated as under: 3. That, the said defendant no.3 in her W.S. has claimed to be second wife of Late Subodh Ranjan Hore who was karta of the family left by his father namely Late Surendra Kumar Hore, surviving heirs of whom are plaintiffs in the suit who all are unable to identify the defendant no.3 either to their family members or as the second wife Late Subhodh Ranjan Hore. 4. That, whatever it may be, the sayings of defendant no.3 that she is the second wife of said Subhodh Ranjan Hore or, the legal right of a second wife cannot be decided in the present suit. 5. 4. That, whatever it may be, the sayings of defendant no.3 that she is the second wife of said Subhodh Ranjan Hore or, the legal right of a second wife cannot be decided in the present suit. 5. That, in view of the said facts, it is evident that the defendant no.3 namely Padama Devi is not only the most unnecessary party but her name in the cause title of the plaint appears to be most unnecessary, scandalous and vexations which might cause embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit and may tend to prejudice to the petitioner and thus, her name requires to be struck-off from the cause title of the plaint. 3. Under section 2(f) of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000 the expression “landlord” has been defined as under: 2(f) “Landlord includes the person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive, the rent of the building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another, or on account or on behalf of for the benefit of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, guardian or who would so receive the rent, to be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant”. 4. By incorporating a new paragraph through amendment in paragraph no.11 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have disputed that the defendant no.3 is the legally-wedded wife of late Subodh Ranjan Hore. The plaintiffs, thus, intend to challenge the capacity of defendant no.3 to receive rent for the suit premises from defendant nos.1 and 2 and the trial judge, holding that the defendant no.3 is not a necessary party or proper party, deleted her on the application of the plaintiffs from array of the parties. Whether the defendant no.3 who has claimed herself legally-wedded wife of late Subodh Ranjan Hore is entitled to receive rent for the tenanted premises or not is an issue which needs to be decided in the suit. In the above facts, therefore, the defendant no.3, who according to the defendant nos.1 & 2 is receiving rent from them, is necessary party in the suit, at least for adjudication of the dispute on landlord-tenant relationship. 5. Whether a person is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in “Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. 5. Whether a person is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in “Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another” reported in AIR 1963 SC 786 . It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute is a necessary party and the one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding is a proper party. Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC the Court may at any stage of the proceeding, either suo-motu or upon an application of a party, struck-out the name of any party who has been improperly joined and name of any person who ought to have been joined may be added in the suit. This power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is grounded on justice, equity and good conscience. In “Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.” reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 , the definition of necessary parties was expanded by the Supreme Court, wherein it has been observed that; “14. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.......” 6. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.......” 6. In the facts of this case, for a complete and effectual adjudication of the controversy sought to be raised by the plaintiffs on the status of the defendant no.3, she becomes a necessary party. The trial judge has committed a serious error in law in deleting the defendant no.3 from the array of the parties in the suit. The impugned order dated 28.11.2016 suffers from serious infirmity in law, and accordingly it is set-aside. In view of the dispute on the landlord-tenant relationship, now the defendant nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the arrears of rent and the current rent in terms of section 19 of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2000, in the court. 7. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms.