1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are these: The defendant-appellant took a theka from the plaintiff-respondent of 451 bighas (the greater part of which was agricultural land) on an annual rent of Rs. 500. Admittedly, he paid only Rs. 415 in one of the years under dispute and only Rs. 445 in the remaining year under dispute. When sued in the Rent Court for the balance he set up the plea that the plaintiff had improperly deprived him of the use of two bighas and 3 biswas out of the 451 bighas leased to him and had given the use thereof to a certain Sadullah for the purpose of making bricks thereon, and had taken rent from Sadullah. The lower Appellate Court has refused to admit this plea. I agree with the learned District Judge on the point. It is open to the defendant to institute a suit in the Civil Court for damages for breach of contract in respect of his allegation, but there is no possible method by which he can obtain a deduction from his lease-money from the Rent Court in respect of the matter alleged. The Rent Court can certainly not award him damages. It is not a question of a set-off, because a set-off must be an ascertained sum. The plea taken that Sadullah must be considered as having paid the rent to the plaintiff in respect of the land used by him for the manufacturing of bricks as part payment of the defendant's rent is not supported by any facts and there are no facts to justify the conclusion of the Trial Court that the plaintiff reduced the demand for rent. The words used by the Trial Court on the point show that there was no substance in the suggestion. The Assistant Collector says 'that the plaintiff tacitly agreed, to deduct the said amount from annual theka money of defendant'. There is no evidence to support that statement. I dismiss this appeal with costs.