1. The point in appeal is correct that a revenue Court cannot allow a set off. The authority of the revenue Court in such a matter is taken away by the provisions of Section 193(g), Tenancy Act 2 of 1901. The plaintiff sued for rent and the defendant desired to deduct his nankar allowance from the amount of rent. The two subordinate Courts have held that the true rent was arrived at by-the deduction of the nankar from the rent. This opinion is based on a misunderstanding of nankar right. The two rights are wholly different. A nankar is a certain allowance which an ex-proprietor receives from a person purchasing his property, while his tenancy rights do not depend on any exproprietary right. The defendant ought to bring a separate suit to recover his nankar right. The origin of the two rights of recovery being different, it cannot be said that the real rent is the amount entered in the khatauni minus the amount of nankar. Reference was made to a judgment of a settlement officer who was of opinion that the provisions of Section 193(g) did not apply. He was welcome to his opinion, but cannot bind this Court by expressing such an opinion. He may have had authority to fix rent. He, however, did not fix any rent by subtraction but based his decree-on the wrong opinion that a claim for nankar was not a claim in the nature of a set off.
2. I decree the appeal. Parties shall bear their own costs.