JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:— This is a tenants appeal against the decree for his eviction from certain disputed premises passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi and confirmed in appeal and second appeal.

2. The reaspondent, the owner of the premises, let it out to the appellant in 1961 as a monthly tenant. An, unregistered deed of lease was executed on that occasion containing the following statement as one of the clauses :

"That they will not assign or under let or part with the premises hereby demised without the permission in writing of the landlord subject however to this proviso that they shall be entitled to assign or otherwise part with the possession of the said premises or any part thereof to their associate concerns without such consent but in any event the lessees shall be liable" for, the payment of the rent during the term hereby, granted."

3. The appellant is a manufacturing company of Scooters, Pickup Vans and Auto, Three-Wheelers. Alleging that the appellant had sub-let the, premises to M/s. United Automobiles without his consent,, the respondent contended that. the ground mentioned in S. 14 (1) Proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was made out and the appellant was liable to be evicted.

4. The eviction proceeding was defended by the appellant on the ground that the M/s. United Automobiles are the authorised dealer and distributor of the products manufactured by the appellant and has been in occupation of the premises in that capacity and cannot, therefore, be described as a sub-tenant. It was alternatively argued that in view o the term of the lease as quoted above the arrangement with the M/s. United Automobiles cannot be condemned as a sublease without the consent of the respondent. The stand of the respondent has been that the above-mentioned term, of the: lease cannot be looked into as the document was not registered and further the M/s United Automobiles cannot be assumed to be an associate concern within the meaning of the term. The Rent Controller, as well as, the appellate authority held that the afore mentioned term (if the lease was not inadmissible and the appellant was entitled to rely upon the same, but ordered eviction on the ground that M/s. United Automobiles was inducted in the premises as a sub- lessee. The High Court dismissed the appellants second appeal in limine, and in this situation the present appeal by special leave has been filed.

5. It has been strenuously contended by he learned counsel for the appellant that as, i) the United Automobiles is a distributor of the products manufactured by the appellant on the basis of commission, (ii) it pays the same amount, to the appellant as the rent of the premises payable by the appellant to the respondent, and (iii) is entitled to be in possession only as long as it continues to be a distributor, it should be held to be an associate concern within the meaning of the aforementioned term of the lease. In reply to the respondents convention that the term cannot be taken into consideration as the deed is not a registered one, it was urged that the appellant, in view of the provisions of S. 49 of the Registration Act, is entitled to rely upon the term for collateral purposes. The argument is, that the document may not be admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of a lease or the terms thereof. But as the afore-mentioned clause does not come within that category, inasmuch as, it merely amounts to a written permission to the appellant to create a sub-lease, it cannot be excluded from consideration on the ground of non-registration.

6. There is no dispute that the appellant has put M/s. United Automobiles in possession of the premises and has thus parted with the possession within the meaning of S. 14(l) Proviso (b) of the Act. The appellant company has a separate legal entity and has nothing to do with M/s. United Automobiles except that the latter is the dealer-distributor of some of its manufactured articles. M/s. United Automobiles is not a