Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma,J.—Heard Sri R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. N. Tilhari, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Sitapur in S.C.C. Revision No. 30 of 2000 dated 20.1.2001 by which he allowed the application for impleadment moved by the opposite party no.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of House No. 453, Mohalla Thompsonganj, City Sitapur, Pargana Khairabad, Tahsil and District Sitapur which was purchased from one Uma Shanker Mehrotra by a duly registered sale deed dated 11.11.1999. The western portion of the house in dispute was rented to late Sunder Lal Gupta by the erstwhile owner and after his death, the tenancy was succeeded by his son Prem Shanker and Smt. Gomti Devi, who are parties to the writ petition, but they illegally and unauthorizedly sub-let the western portion of the house in question to the opposite party No.1 without the consent of either the erstwhile owner or the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner by a registered notice dated 11.2.2000 terminated the tenancy of opposite party nos.2 and 3 in respect of the house in dispute asking them to vacate the accommodation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice. Though the said notice was served upon them, yet they did not vacate the house in dispute. Under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2000 in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Sitapur for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. During pendency of Suit, Mahesh Prasad Rastogi/opposite party No.1 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC alleging that he was a tenant of the portion in dispute alongwith Prem Shanker and Smt. Gomti Devi and has been doing the business of electrical goods for the last 30-35 years. Previously, he was paying rent to Uma Shanker Mehrotra and now after the sale, Kuldeep Sharma (petitioner) has become landlord and he has become tenant of the petitioner. He further alleged that Prem Shanker and Smt. Gomti Devi have vacated the house and have colluded with the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the Suit in order to illegally dispossess him from the house. He further alleged that Prem Shanker and Smt. Gomti Devi have vacated the house and have colluded with the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the Suit in order to illegally dispossess him from the house. The opposite party No.1 also alleged that in order to save his dispossession, he filed a Regular Suit No. 59 of 2000 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing him from House No. 453, Greekganj (Thompsonganj), Sitapur till his tenancy is not legally determined. 4. To the said application for impleadment, the petitioner filed detailed objections and denied the contents of the same as well as maintainability of the application. The petitioner categorically stated that Mahesh Prasad Rastogi has never been tenant of a portion of house in dispute. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court rejected the application for impleadment vide order dated 17.11.2000. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No.1 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 30 of 2000. The said revision was allowed by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 20.1.2001. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the revisional Court has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in discarding the case law relied upon by the petitioner pertaining to the impleadment applied by a stranger or sub-tenant to the Suit. According to the petitioner, the presence of opposite party No.1 in the Suit is not necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the dispute between the petitioner and opposite party nos.2 and 3. The order passed by the revisional Court would affect the disposal of the plaintiff’s Suit and would cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 6. Refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H. N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that Sri Uma Shankar Mehrotra was the owner of house No. 453 and the petitioner was one of the tenant in one portion of the said house. The answering opposite party No.1 and the opposite party nos.2 and 3 had also been the tenants in one portion of the said house. The tenancy of opposite party No.1 has been for last more than 30-35 years. The petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 11.11.1999 purchased the house and became the owner/landlord and the opposite party No.1 continued to be the tenant in the said house. The tenancy of opposite party No.1 has been for last more than 30-35 years. The petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 11.11.1999 purchased the house and became the owner/landlord and the opposite party No.1 continued to be the tenant in the said house. He specifically denied that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 had sub-let the premises in question to the opposite party No.1. Further, he states that the opposite party No.1 has been the tenant in his own right of the premises in question since before purchase of the house by the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has filed the rent receipts issued by Sri Asharfi Lal, Mukhtar of the previous owner/landlord. Further, he filed the copy of the assessment of house tax register of Nagar Palika Parishad, Sitapur for the years 1993 to 2000 wherein the opposite party No.1, namely, Mahesh Prasad has been shown to be the tenant in the house in dispute at the rate of Rs.70/- per month. According to him, while rejecting the application for impleadment, the trial Court did not consider the aforesaid documents. The Revisional Court has clearly held that when he claims to be the tenant himself he became a necessary party. Further, it held that to avoid multiplicity of Suit and proceedings and render an effective final adjudication between the parties, impleadment of opposite party no.1 was necessary. 7. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the Revisional Court and trial Court. A careful perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court would indicate that the documentary evidence produced by the opposite party No.1 has not been considered and the trial Court rejected the impleadment application outrightly. Being aggrieved, he filed a revision.ýÿ In the revision, the opposite party No.1 has taken specific ground that the question of alleged sub-tenancy and real status of the revisionist could not be decided effectively and finally without the impleadment of revisionist. Therefore, he is necessary party. The said revision was contested by both the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Revisional Court allowed the revision. Learned Counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner is sub-tenant. Therefore, he is not a necessary party and he need not be impleaded in the Suit. Therefore, he is necessary party. The said revision was contested by both the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Revisional Court allowed the revision. Learned Counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner is sub-tenant. Therefore, he is not a necessary party and he need not be impleaded in the Suit. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1470 and AIR 1964 SC 1889 . It is admitted position that if a person is sub-tenant, he need not be impleaded. Here, in this case, according to the petitioner, the opposite party No.1 is not a tenant, but sub-tenant, whereas according to opposite party No.1, he is tenant and in support of his submissions, he has relied upon the rent receipts and House Tax Assessment of Nagar Palika. Since the documentary evidence has not been considered by the trial Court, he filed revision. Therefore, the order passed by the revisional Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the case laws relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel are not attracted. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that the trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the Suit, in accordance with law, within a maximum period of six months, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. _____________