ORDER :

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 29.9.2016 passed by the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA No. 318 of 2015 in OS No. 1897 of 2015 wherein an application filed under Section (sic Order) XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to strike off the defense of the respondent/defendant for not paying arrears of rents, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner instituted a suit OS No. 1897 of 2015 for eviction of the respondent/defendant/tenant. In IA No. 318 of 2015 it was stated by the petitioner that the respondent alongwith his mother and sister approached the petitioner somewhere in the month of September, 2011 for taking the suit schedule property on lease. There were negotiations between them and the petitioner agreed to let out the said property on lease to the respondent.; on monthly rent of Rs. 9,500/-. Accordingly, a rental agreement dated 24.10.2011 was entered into for a period of 11 months. The rent was to be paid by the respondent on or before 5th of each English calendar month. The respondent was irregular in payment of rent. On 30.7.2014, the respondent paid rent for a period of four months i.e., 24.9.2013 to 23.1.2014. The respondent is due a sum of Rs. 1,75,794/- calculated upto 23.5.2015. The petitioner had been communicating about payment of rent with the defendant and his sister, Ms. Bhagawati Soni, staying with him and other family members. It is the specific case of the petitioner that rents were remitted to the petitioner's bank account through online (NEFT) payment. Several emails have been addressed to the respondent for payment of rental arrears and seeing no response, legal notice dated 14.6.2015 was issued terminating lease by giving 15 days notice as required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the notice, the petitioner claimed damages/mesne profits at Rs. 25,000/- per month. The rent as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 10,998/-.

3. On a perusal of the contents of the written statement, this Court finds the defence taken by the respondent adverting to the statements made by the petitioner/plaintiff in Paras 3 to 7 of the plaint is vague. This Court is concerned only with regard to the deposit of rents during the pendency of the suit, hence, deems it appropriate not to make any observations, which would have bearing on the merits of the suit.

4. In regard to the specific averments made in the plaint, as above, regarding payment of rental amount through NEFT and communication (Para 2) with the sister of the defendant, there is no denial to such pleadings by the respondent in his written statement. Further, regarding rental agreement dated 24.10.2011, there is no specific denial in the written statement except stating that the petitioner has suppressed true facts and made false pleadings; petitioner is not the owner of the premises and not entitled for the relief sought.

5. IA No. 2 of 2017 is filed in this revision to receive the rental agreement dated 24.10.2011 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent as additional evidence. The said application is ordered since it is stated that the rental agreement could not be filed at the earlier point of time as it was sent for impounding. The agreement is entered into for a period of 11 months commencing from 24.10.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,500/-. The rent is payable on or before the 5th of each English calendar month.

6. Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sharada Bai v. Navratan Vyas, 2017 (3) ALD 212, wherein it was held that the tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord since estoppel operates against him under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

7. Mr. R. Umender Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that the rental agreement was not part of the Court record when the impugned order was passed by the Court below and during the trial the rental agreement was marked as Ex. Al,