Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The impugned order dated 20.5.2008 passed by the court below in Civil Revision No. 1227 of 2008 does not decide anything, save and except, holding that the documents which were filed by the intervenor would not have been taken on the records and admitted in evidence at the instance of defendant, tenant-petitioner. The intervention application of a third person in a suit for eviction having been rejected by an earlier order of the court below any document filed by the intervenor could neither be relied by the defendant tenant nor could be taken on record by way of his evidence. 3. Considering aforesaid nature of the order as also the specific defence of the petitioner, who is defendant in the eviction suit, this Court therefore would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Coming to now Civil Revision No. 1421 of 2008, this Court would find that by a separate impugned order dated 21.5.2008 the court below has rejected large number of documents sought to be filed by the petitioner, who is defendant in the eviction suit, for its being admitted in evidence on the ground that they were not presented at the appropriate time and in fact such documents do not have relevance for the limited issue to be decided in the eviction suit. 5. This case was heard yesterday and both the parties were asked to pinpoint the documents which were referable in the pleadings and the counsel at best could point out only two of the documents, namely, at Serial No. 20 to have been spelt out in his written statement. 6. In the opinion of this Court thus these two aforesaid documents at best couid have been taken on records, though counsel for the other side would submit that Serial No. 44 has already been taken on records. 7. Mr. Gyanendra Roy, counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that only part of that rent receipts which were in the interest of the petitioner in the capacity of the defendant being paid to one Liladhar, as claimed by him, has been exhibited, but the counter-foil of the receipt by Liladhar still has not been exhibited. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court would allow the aforementioned two documents at Serial Nos. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court would allow the aforementioned two documents at Serial Nos. 20 and 44 to be taken on records, if the same has already been not exhibited. For the remaining documents, this Court is not satisfied that they could not have been taken on records by admitting them into evidence because they were not referable in the pleadings of the petitioner. It is an eviction suit and in the eviction suit question of title can only be raised by the landlord and not by the tenant, who must confine his case to the facts stated by him in his written statement. This being so, the remaining documents cannot be admitted in evidence at the instance of the defendant-petitioner. 9. In the result, both the civil revision application subject to the aforesaid observations/directions are dismissed.