Short Note : The plaintiff non-applicant filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant applicant on grounds under section 12(1)(a) and (f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. 2. The defendant had, inter-alia, taken an objection that the suit is premature as it has been filed before the expiry of the seven years period mentioned in the rent note. 3. During enquiry under section 13(2) of the Act, the defendant wanted to put in evidence agreement purported to be signed by the plaintiff land-lord. The trial Court has not permitted that agreement to be tendered in evidence. Hence this revision. Held : The learned Civil Judge has acted contrary to the provisions of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. In a case reported in AIR 1950 SC 1 (Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. Hormusji lamshedji Ginualla and Sons) it has held, that the defence under S.53A, T.P. Act is available to a person who has an agreement of lease in his favour though no lease has been executed and registered. In the instance case the plaintiff has produced one unilateral rent note executed by the defendant applicant and the defendant has submitted an agreement executed by the plaintiff landlord. In view of the definition of 'lease' in the Registration Act, the document relied on by the defendant-applicant falls within the definition of the word 'lease' and as such he can use it to protect his possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in spite or its being unregistered. A Division Bench of this Court in case reported in AIR 1955 Nag. 302 (S. Kanhaiyalal s/o S. Rangaiya Naidu and another v. Jarome Decosta s/o late N. Decosta and others) held that:- "Section 53-A is ordinarily to be used as a defence and not as a weapon of attack." 4. The defendant is putting the agreement considered to be lease by the trial Court to its ordinary use viz., by way of defence. Revision allowed.