ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.80 of 2018 in HRCOP.No.11 of 2013, dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Dindigul, dismissing the petition filed under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC, seeking permission to mark the agreement i.e., Varthamanam dated 01.09.2015.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent/landlord has filed the petition in HRCOP.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Dindigul, seeking eviction on the ground of own use and occupation under Section 10 3(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred as per their ranking/status before the Rent Controller.

4. It is not in dispute that the property, subject matter of the Rent Control Petition was leased out to the respondent/tenant by the petitioner/landlord on 08.12.2013 for a period of 9 years vide registered lease deed and that the landlord has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance at the inception of the tenancy. It is also not in dispute that the tenant has been running a jewellery in the name and style of Arra jewellery in the demised building. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/landlord side evidence was already completed and that when the respondent/tenant side evidence was in progress, the above petition came to be filed.

5. The case of the respondent is that he paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as further advance and the same was received by the petitioner/landlord by executing a Varthamanam; that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the tenant had paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and the landlord has received the same and executed an unregistered agreement i.e., Varthamanam on 01.09.2015, agreeing to extend the tenancy for a further period of 9 years; that when the respondent was attempting to exhibit the agreement dated 01.09.2015, the same was opposed by the petitioner/landlord and that therefore, the tenant was forced to file the above application, now under consideration.

6. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.17 of 2017 for reception of additional statement of objections based on the alleged varthamanam document, that after enquiry, the learned Rent Controller has passed an order on 11.09.2019, dismissing the said petition. The learned Rent Controller, in the impugned order, has specifically observed that since it was already decided in I.A.No.17 of 2017, that the unregistered agreement dated 01.09.2015 was not at all necessary to decide the eviction application, the tenant is not entitled to seek that the said document is to be marked, as the order passed in I.A.No.17 of 2017 was not at all challenged.

7. No doubt, in the grounds of revision, though the tenant has stated that an appeal with condone delay application has been filed and the same is pending for consideration, he has not elaborated anything further. Even at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not stated that any appeal or application to condone the delay in filing the appeal is pending for consideration before this Court. Since the learned Rent Controller has already refused permission for filing of any additional counter statement touching upon the unregistered agreement dated 01.09.2015, the said document cannot be admitted in evidence, as there was no pleading, admittedly. It is settled law that any amount of evidence without pleadings or any amount of pleadings without evidence are of no use.

8. More over, admittedly the trial of the case was commenced as early as on 15.04.2014 and according to the tenant, he had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- on 01.09.2015 and the landlord, after receiving the same, had executed the document, now under dispute, on that day itself. It is the further case of the tenant that the landlord had agreed to extend the tenancy for a furthe