Sunil Hali, J.;- A lease agreement was executed between the plaintiff-petitioner and defendant-respondent no. 1 in the year 1967 for a period of 30 years for a land measuring 9600 Sq. feet situate at district Farrukhabad on monthly rent of Rs. 225/-. The lease expired in the year 1997. The respondents, however, did not vacate the premises which compelled the plaintiff-petitioner to file a civil suit No. 518 of 1997 (Rejendra Prasad versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Farrukhabad. 2. The trial of the suit proceeded and reached at a stage whereby statement of the plaintiff was over. An application has been filed by respondent no. 2 for being impleaded as a party in the said suit. His claim for seeking impleadment is based on the fact that he is running the petrol pump on behalf of respondent no. 1 in term of the agreement executed in this behalf on 31.8.1995. Further pleading is that he is dealing with the Indian Oil Corporation in running of the said petrol pump. His application was considered by the trial court and rejected vide order dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, respondent no. 2 preferred a revision before the District Judge, Farrukhabad, who vide judgment and order dated 14.12.2007 allowed the revision and directed the trial court to hear the parties again and pass orders in accordance with law. 3. The findings of the revisional court is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present today. On 8.9.2011 this Court observed that in case counsel for the respondent seeks adjournment, the case will be heard in his absence on account of the fact that on last three dates he was not present. 5. The matter was heard in absence of learned counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner is present. 6. It is not in dispute that the lease agreement was executed by the petitioner with respondent no. 1 in the year 1967 and same expired in the year 1997. On failure of the respondent no. 1 to vacate the premises a civil suit was filed before the trial court. The controversy in the suit relates to occupation of the premises in question by respondent no. 1 after expiry of the lease. 1 in the year 1967 and same expired in the year 1997. On failure of the respondent no. 1 to vacate the premises a civil suit was filed before the trial court. The controversy in the suit relates to occupation of the premises in question by respondent no. 1 after expiry of the lease. The agreement having come to an end, the petitioner's cause for filing suit arises immediately thereafter. 7. For seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10, it is necessary that the requirement of the said provisions are complied with. The Rule contemplates that the necessity of impleading a person in the proceedings should be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate all the questions involved in the suit. 8. To comply with this principle in the present case, the claim of the respondent no. 2 is that he is running the petrol pump for and on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation as partner and as such he is a necessary party. While scanning through the contents of the agreement executed between respondent no. 1 and 2 it clearly emerges that respondent no. 2 is only dealer for retail sale and supply of petroleum products in the said premises. Clause (2) of the agreement clearly mentions that dealer is purely a licensee to use the premises and outfit for the sole and exclusive purpose of storing, selling and handling the products purchased by the dealer from the Corporation. He has no right, title or interest in the said premises or outfit and shall not be entitled to claim the right of lease, sub-lease, tenant or any other interest in the premises or outfit. This is the agreement which respondent no. 2 relied upon for the purpose of seeking his impleadment. 9. On the face of it, it clearly emerges that respondent no. 2 has no right to claim any interest in the said premises. Other aspect is that this agreement has been executed between the plaintiff and respondent no. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. The controversy in the suit relates to overstay of respondent no. 2 has no right to claim any interest in the said premises. Other aspect is that this agreement has been executed between the plaintiff and respondent no. 1 and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no. 2. The controversy in the suit relates to overstay of respondent no. 1 on the said premises after expiry of the lease, the impleadment of a person in the said suit who is neither a tenant nor there is any privity of contract with him, can not be termed to be a necessary party. The revisional court has absolutely misdirected itself in holding that the petitioner being partner in the Indian Oil Corporation is a necessary party. The finding of the revisional court is based contrary to the record. The material on record clearly denies respondent no. 2 to have any right to claim himself to be lessee or sub-tenant. Learned District Judge has shown total ignorance in dealing with this important aspect of the matter. 10. I, therefore, allow the petition and set aside the order of the revisional court and direct the trial court to proceed with the matter and dispose of the trial expeditiously as far as possible within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournments shall be given in this behalf. 11. A copy of the order be sent to the District Judge, Farrukhabad for compliance and record.