Jaspal Singh, J. ( 1 ) FOLLOWING my judgment in Brig. S. S. Pun v. R. Chander Shekhar reported as 53 (1994) Delhi Law Times, 186 and the subsequent judgment of Hon ble Mr. Justice J. K. Mehra in M/s. Jwala Persad Ashok Kumar Chepra v. Ms. Nath Tubes Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1994 Delhi 317 the learned Civil Judge has passed an order directing the present petitioner to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3,715. 00 per month with effect from September 1,1992 and future rent at the said rate month bymonth by the 10th of each succeeding month. The order is to operate till the final disposal of the suit which is for possession and recovery of arrears of rent. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on one ground. He submits that though on September 1,1992 the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 3715. 00 per month the petitioner was entitled to adjust the amount of House Tax out of the said amount. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the agreed rate of rent is over and above the house tax to be paid by the petitioner and that it was never agreed to at any stage that the petitioner would be adjusting the amount of house-tax as claimed. ( 3 ) IS the petitioner entitled to adjust the house tax being paid by it ? This is short is the question. The learned Counsel for the petitioner admitted that till 1993 it had never claimed adjustment and that it was only in the written statement filed in answer to the suit for possession that this plea was taken for the first time. He has also not drawn my attention to any document which may be treated as admissible in evidence in support of the plea for adjustment. Of course, if does appear that the parties had executed a rent note for two years. It was admittedly required to be registered but was not got registered. He has also not drawn my attention to any document which may be treated as admissible in evidence in support of the plea for adjustment. Of course, if does appear that the parties had executed a rent note for two years. It was admittedly required to be registered but was not got registered. This being the position the learned Civil Judge relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Bihari Lal Kohli, 39 (1989) Delhi Law Times 55 and a judgment of this Court in Smt. Abnash Rani Sun v. Smt. Santosh Choudhary, 1991 Rajdhani Lal Reporter, 159 held that since the document was not registered its terms could not be looked into. I have not been persuaded to take, at that stage, a view contrary to the view already taken by the learned Civil Judge. Moreso, because the order passed for deposit of arrears of rent and future rent is only based on primafacie view and is in no way reflection on the merits of the case. For the reasons recorded above I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil revision is consequently dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.