Lease registration and tenancy set-off rules barred the defence, while the rent claim was ultimately decreed with costs.

A kabuliyat for a term not exceeding one year was held to fall within the specific lease-registration provision rather than the general clause for instruments creating an interest in immovable property, so registration was not required and the objection to its proof failed. A set-off for money spent to save crops in a suit for rent under the U.P. Tenancy Act was barred by the special tenancy provision, leaving the defendants to seek relief in a separate suit. The dismissal was set aside and the rent suit was decreed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the kabuliyat for a term not exceeding one year required registration under the Registration Act despite being an instrument creating an interest in immovable property; (ii) Whether the defendants could raise a set-off of the amount paid to save their crops in a suit for rent under the U.P. Tenancy Act.

Issue (i): Whether the kabuliyat for a term not exceeding one year required registration under the Registration Act despite being an instrument creating an interest in immovable property.

Analysis: The description of the transaction in the plaint was not treated as controlling where the plaintiff in substance relied on a kabuliyat for one year. The specific provision dealing with leases was held to govern such an instrument, and the more general clause concerning non-testamentary instruments creating an interest in immovable property was held inapplicable to leases because the Act contained a separate clause for leases.

Conclusion: The kabuliyat did not require registration, and the objection to proof on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants could raise a set-off of the amount paid to save their crops in a suit for rent under the U.P. Tenancy Act.

Analysis: The defendants' claim arose out of the same lease transaction and constituted a claim for money paid because of the alleged failure to secure peaceful enjoyment. Section 193(g) barred such a set-off in a suit for rent under the Tenancy Act, leaving the defendants to pursue a separate suit.

Conclusion: The set-off was barred, and the defence failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree of dismissal was set aside and the plaintiff's suit for rent was decreed in full with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute contains a specific provision dealing with leases, the general registration clause for instruments creating interests in immovable property does not apply to such leases; and a set-off barred by the special tenancy statute cannot be entertained in a rent suit.

---