- (1.) THIS is an application in revision against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 6. 3. 52 upholding the appellate order of the Collector, Jaipur, dated 30. 7. 49 which entirely upheld the decree of the trial court in a suit for arrears of rent.
(2.) THE validity of the lower court's order has been challenged be-fore us mainly on two grounds. THE first is that the document which forms the basis of the suit was compulsory registrable and as it is unregistered it should not have been admitted in evidence. THE other is that the suit in substance is for an Ijara amount and not for arrears of rent, hence beyond the cognizance of the revenue court. We have heard the parties at length and have examined the record as well. As regards the first contention it is true that a lease of a immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent is compulsory registrable under sec. 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act. But the suit is not on the basis of any lease. It is based on a 'kabuliyat' executed by the defendants. As laid down in sec. 107 of the Transfer of Property Act a lease should be executed by bath the lessor and the lessee. The document in the present case has been executed only by the lessee and hence does not amount to a lease. As regards the second contention it would suffice to observe that 'ijara,' as defined in sec. 95 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, means a lease for the collection of rents. What is claimed in the present suit is cash and kind payable on account of the use or occupation of land and is obviously covered by the definition of term 'rent' as given in sec. 4 (8) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. There is thus no substance in this revision. The revision is, hereby rejected. .;