JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – The revision is reported to be beyond time by seven days. 2. The cause shown for the delay in filing the revision is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the delay condonation application No.299135 of 2016 is allowed. 3. Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision. 4. Heard Sri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist. 5. Sri Madhav Jain has appeared for the respondents. The revisionist is seeking revision of the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge as a Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No.24 of 2015 for rent and eviction rejecting two applications (paper No.51 Ga and 60 Ga). 6. The application (paper 51 Ga) is to the effect that the rent agreement (paper No.29 Ga) filed on record is for a period of more than one year and since it is not registered it is liable to be impounded. 7. The other application (paper No.60 Ga) is that since the rent agreement is unregistered it is inadmissible in evidence. 8. The court below in rejecting the application paper No.51 Ga has recorded that the rent agreement reveals that it is for eleven months only and, as such, it not required to be registered. In case anything contrary comes it shall be dealt with during the argument. 9. In rejecting the application paper No.60 Ga it has been stated that since the agreement is for less than one year its registration is not mandatory. The question of its inadmissibility in evidence shall be deal with it at the time of final hearing, if necessary. 10. This apart, the revisionist would have a right to challenge the admissibility of the said document after the decision of the suit in appeal or revision, if the occasion so arises. 11. In view of the above, looking to the nature of the order, I am of the view that no error has been committed by the court below. 12. The revision has no merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.