JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Sri Kesheri Nath Tripathi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri H.P. Pandey learned counsel for the respondent are present. 2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of court of first instance dated 24.9.2011 and the revisional order dated 25.5.2014. 3. The court of first instance by the impugned order dated has rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment and the said order has been affirmed by the revisional court. 4. The submission of Sri Goyal is that the property in dispute belongs to the petitioner and that the plaintiff respondent no. 1 has no locus standi to maintain a suit for eviction of defendants no. 2 and 3 from the said property. He further submits that in case the said suit is decreed, the plaintiff respondent no. 1 would be put in possession which would adversely affect the right of the petitioner over the said property. 5. The suit in question has been filed by plaintiff respondent no. 1 for recovery of possession of the suit land against the defendant respondents no. 2 and 3 alleging them to be the tenants of the same. 6. In the said suit no relief has been sought against the petitioner.? The decree passed therein would not affect the rights and interest of the petitioners. It is not that the above suit can not be decided effectively in the absence of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is not a necessary party to the said proceedings. 7. The submission that the plaintiff? respondent is not the owner of the suit property has no material bearing as the suit is based upon relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties.? 8. Even if petitioner is permitted to appear and appraise the court with the true and correct facts relating to the title over the property, petitioner would not be in any way benefited, in as much as, the? petitioner would not get any relief in the suit and would not be put in possession of it. ? 9. In the above and for the reason contained in the impugned orders the petitioner is neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 10. petitioner would not get any relief in the suit and would not be put in possession of it. ? 9. In the above and for the reason contained in the impugned orders the petitioner is neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 10. In case petitioner is interested in obtaining possession or for realizing the rent or damages for the use and occupation of the property, his remedy is by way of a separate suit.? 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not consider it fit and proper to interfere in this case in exercise of writ jurisdiction at the stage of final hearing of the suit. 12. The writ petition is dismissed.