JUDGMENT 1. - This is a defendant's revision application against an order of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur dated 11th November, 1972, deciding certain issues as preliminary issues. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. With their agreement the revision application was decided without sending for the record as both the parties had copies of the record with them. 3. The first contention is that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is not applicable to the restaurants, stalls and the cycle stand contained in the cinema building which have been let out as a whole, as an integral part of the cinema building. Learned counsel has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Uttamchand v. S.M. Lalwani, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 716. In that case despite the absence of any exception their Lordships held that where a Dal Mill was leased out the dominant intention was to lease out the Mill for manufacturing the Dal and not to lease out the building which was, however, an integral part of the Mill. They held that Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1955 (No. XXIII of 1955) was not applicable. I do not see how this case can at all help the petitioner. 4. Under the Rajasthan Act, Section 2(c) provides an exception in case of cinema buildings. It runs as follows:- "Provided that nothing in the Act shall apply:- (a) ........... (b) ........... (c) to any premises which are meant to be of public amusement or sport such as cinema buildings, theaters and the like and are let out for being used as such." 5. Under Section 3(v)(b)(iii) premises includes any fittings, affixed to, and amenities provided in, such building or part for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. The restaurants, the stalls and the cycle stand are amenities provided by those who run the cinema for the amusement of the person who go to see the cinema shows. I am accordingly of the opinion that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 does not apply to the premises in suit. 6. The next question raised is that the limitation. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was born on 13th January, 1948. A certified copy of the order of the District Judge, appointing his mother as his guardian was produced by the plaintiff. 6. The next question raised is that the limitation. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was born on 13th January, 1948. A certified copy of the order of the District Judge, appointing his mother as his guardian was produced by the plaintiff. That proved that she was appointed the guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff accordingly attained majority on completion of 21 years of age. This was on 13th January, 1969. This suit was filed within 3 years of this date. It is contended in the plaint that this allegation was not made as required under Order 7, Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code. But this allegation was made in the replication. So, the suit is within limitation. 7. Under issue Nos. 19 and 20, the trial Court held that no part of the claim put forward by the defendant can be decided unless Court-fee is paid as it amounts to set off within the meaning of Order 8, Civil Procedure Code. 8. One item of Rs. 1,74,102.75 was claimed. Out of this amount, learned counsel for the defendant pressed the revision application with regard to four items. 9. Two items are claimed under Section 108(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, and it is contended that no Court-fee is payable. One of these is an item of Rs. 18,571.08 and the other is the item of Rs. 9,046.15. 10. No reference was made before the trial Court to Section 10(8)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. This clause runs as follows:- "If the lessor neglects to make, within a reasonable time after notice, any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from the rent, or otherwise recover it from the lessor." It has not been pleaded in the written statement that any notice was issued by the defendant to the plaintiff as prescribed under this clause asking him to make the repairs and on his failure to do so within a reasonable time the defendant carried them out at his own expenses. Moreover, Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act is subject to a contract to the contrary. Moreover, Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act is subject to a contract to the contrary. The relevant clause about it in the contract of lease entered into between the parties runs as follows:-4(x)(b) "That the lessor shall carry out and do all repairs to the demised premises and its equipment, with the exception of maintenances and repairs to sound and projection equipment, fire extinguishers, and the Generator set, the cost of which shall be borne by the lessee, provided that all damage not attributable to fair wear & tear have to be paid for by the lessee. For repairs the lessee shall be submitting the statement of required repairs together within the estimate for the lessor's approval. The lessor will after getting the requirements examined will give sanction of the amount which in the circumstances of the case are absolutely necessary but in no case the amount will exceed one month's rent during one year."It has not been pleaded that the damage which was got repaired was attributable to fair wear & tear. Nor, it has been pleaded that the lessee submitted any statement of required repairs together with estimate for the lessor's approval, before executing the repairs himself. In these circumstances, these two items cannot be claimed by the defendant without payment of Court-fee as they amount to a set off. 11. The other two items included a sum of Rs. 1,74,102.75 are items of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 5,625.69. About these two items, the following is the plea of the defendant in the written statement:- "Similarly, besides the adjustments shown in the plaint, there was an admitted adjustment of Rs. 5.625.69 P. admitted by the Administrator in his letter No. 946 dated 27th April, 1967, and of Rs. 3,000 admitted in the Rent Bill No. 1502 dated 20th November, 1966, for the month of October, 1966." 12. The above pleading amounts to saying that the plaintiff accepted these two amounts as payments already made to him. No Court-fee is, therefore, payable on these two amounts. I, therefore, frame the following issue with regard to these two items:- (A) Whether the Administrator allowed an adjustment of Rs. 5,625.69 and also allowed an adjustment of a sum of Rs. 3,000 as alleged in para 40 of the written statement ? D. The findings on issue Nos. 1 & 3 were also challenged before me. I, therefore, frame the following issue with regard to these two items:- (A) Whether the Administrator allowed an adjustment of Rs. 5,625.69 and also allowed an adjustment of a sum of Rs. 3,000 as alleged in para 40 of the written statement ? D. The findings on issue Nos. 1 & 3 were also challenged before me. These raise question of admissibility of evidence which cannot be gone into in revision in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in Harakchand and others v. The State of Rajasthan and others, ILR (1970) 20 Rajasthan 88. 13. The last point contended on behalf of the defendant is that the defendant is entitled to a deduction as claimed in para 47 of his written statement on account of the fact that possession over the whole of the premises was not delivered to him, in the very beginning, and that the Administrator had agreed to allow Rs. 1,374.13 P. on this account. It is not disputed on behalf of the plaintiff that no Court-fee is payable on the amount claimed under para 47 of the written statement. I accordingly, frame another issue as follows:- (B) Is the defendant entitled to deduction of rent as claimed in para 47 of his written statement ?" D. 14. The revision is allowed in part as indicated above without any order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******