Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. This revision petition under Sec.14 (8)of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was originally filed by two persons, namely, Ram Sharan Yadav (Petitioner No.1) and Suresh Prasad (Petitioner No 2 ). Petitioner No.2 described himself as the present head Master and asserts that he was also one of defendants in the court below. 2. The portrayal of the relevant facts are as follows : The plaintiff-opposite party No.1 asserted that he owns and possesses the disputed property which was rented to the defendants 1 to 3, the petitioner No.1, prof. Surendra Kumar Sinha Opposite-party No.2 and one Binay Kumar ranjan for a period of 11 months commencing from December 1984 at the monthly rent of Rs.300/- only for running a private Middle School in the name and style of Sri Jamuna Prasad Madhya Vidayala, Khagaria and that all of them executed a deed of Kerayanama jointly in his favour on 28th December, 1984 earlier he had rented to the aforesaid defendants also the said premises for the said purpose but for one year only in december, 1983 and that the opposite party No.2 m the capacity of the secretary had executed a deed of Kerayanama on 30th December, 1983 but who despite expiry of the earlier lease when asked to hand over vacant possession they started putting pressure on him to allow them to remain in occupation for a tfurther period of 11 months though at an enhanced rate. The defendant No.1 was then a member of Bihar legislative Assembly. As despite expiry of the fixed term lease the defendants have not vacated they are liable for their eviction under section 11 (e) of the Act. He also asserted that he needs the premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation inasmuch as he wants to provide a business to his eldest son by installing a Mill of Oil, Rice and flour as the suit premises is very suitable and fit for the said purpose. 3. Out of the aforesaid three defendants, the opposite party No.2 alone appeared in this suit and put an affidavit in the summary enquiry under Sec.14 of the Act. 3. Out of the aforesaid three defendants, the opposite party No.2 alone appeared in this suit and put an affidavit in the summary enquiry under Sec.14 of the Act. His defends, inter alia, was that the defendant No 3 had left the service of the school and in his place the petitioner no 2 herein has been made incharge headmaster who has not been made a party to the suit, that the suit house was taken on rent in the year 1977 at the rate of Rs.150 per month only but the plain tiff pressed hard and compelled repeatedly to enhance rent, the fixed term lease agreement is against the law, there was never any fixed tenancy, and that the data of personal necessity is false as the plaintiff is having two big homes in front of the suit house which he had let out to other tenants. 4. The trial court held inter alia, that the agreement in question is not void as alleged and is admissible in evidence and that the executants are bound by the terms therein that the plaintiff reasonably and in good faith requires the premises for occupation of his eldest son is sought to be established in business, and that part eviction shall be not proper, and decreed the suit by the impugned order. "a. On 16th January, 1990 Mr. Mehta stated that he shall not press this revision application on behalf of the petitioner No.1 and this fact was also recorded. In the aforementioned view of the matter the petitioner No.2 alone remains the sole petitioner. " 5. It is intriguing as to how the petitioner No.2 described himself as a defendant in this revision petition and even though he was examined in the suit but admittedly he was not a party to the suit. From paragraph 11 of the impugned order, it appears that the non-maintainability of the suit on his account has been discussed in great deal and a finding has been recorded in the impugned order that the suit is maintainable in his absence after taking into account the relevant materials produced by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 (opposite party No.2 herein) in that regard, Mr. Dronacharyaa, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1, firstly submitted that this revision application at the instance of the petitioner No.2 in view of finding recorded is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that an attempt has been made by the petitioner No.2 to challenge the finding indirectly describing him as Incharge Headmaster as the real headmaster had not appeared in the suit. He further submitted that the Defendant No.3 not having been impleaded to this civil revision application it is liable to be dismissed for that omission also. 6. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners asserts in reply that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner No.2 was examined by the contesting Defendant No.2 as D. W.2 in the suit who has fully supported the defence that defendant No.3 had already left the school and thus petitioner No.2 is justified in filing this petition though there has been a mistake in describing him also as a defendant. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner No.2 set up in defence supported by his evidence was wrongly rejected. 7. The question as to whether a person who is not a party to the suit can file an appeal is a settled one. See Smt. Jatan Kumar Golcha V/s. M/s. Golcha Properties (P.) Ltd. , AIR 1971 SC 374 and Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 994 wherein it was laid down by the apex court to the. effect that a person even though not a party to an action may be allowed to file an appeal after obtaining leave if he can be adversely effected. In Annie Besant V/s. Advocate General of Madras and another, AIR 1919 Privy Council 31 it was laid down that Sec.115 of the Code of civil Procedure is not exhaustive. In the 1903 Indian Law Reports 104 (Vol.27) Bombay Series. The Collector of Ahmedabad V/s. Savchand ladukchand) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that even though the Collector who was not party to an order but could assail the same invoking the extraordinaty revisional jurisdiction under Sec.622 (Now 115) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That legal position apart the petitioner No.2 claims to have intermiddled with the office of the headmaster of the school. That legal position apart the petitioner No.2 claims to have intermiddled with the office of the headmaster of the school. In the aforementioned view of the matter, I do not want to throw his revision petition on the ground that he was not a party to the suit originally. 8. The next important question is as to whether the impugned order requires interference under my discretionary jurisdiction. The agreement in question, on the finding, is for a fixed period only. The legality of the agreement has not been assailed by Mr Mehta before me. The tenancy, being for a fixed period had expired long time back. Under section 12 of the Act even a stranger to the suit if he is in possession of the suit premises can be evicted. No illegality has been shown in discarding the defence taken by defendant No 2 and even in the evidence of the petitioner No.2 by the court below which requires my interference in revision when the President and the Secretary have not chosen to support the petitioner No.2. 9. I am further of the view that there has been an error on the part of the petitioner is not impleading Defendant No.3 as a party to this revision application. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, this Application is dismissed but in the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. Application dismissed.