The relationship of landlord and tenant can be created orally and does not require a written lease deed.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal under S. 39 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act 1958 (for short the Act ) has been filed by the Appellantsnumbering three against an order of eviction made against the first appellantwhich was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal, the ground ofeviction being subletting.

( 2 ) IT was on 26. 2. 1969 that M/s Phelpsandco. Pvt. Ltd. (for short the landlord company and now respondent in this appeal) filed a petitionfor eviction against five respondents of the allegation that M/s Rai and Sonspvt. Ltd. (for short the tenant company ) was the tenant in respect ofcertain portion of the ground floor and the first floor of Phelps Building inconnaught Place. New Delhi, owned by the landlord company and that thetenant company sublet various portions of the tenant premises to respondentsnos. 2 to 5 without the consent in writing of the landlord company. Outof the respondents Nos. 2 to 5, alleged to be the sub-tenants, only respondents Nos. 2 and 3 namely, M/s Associated Artists and M/s Saha and Raitravels Private Ltd. , have joined the tenant company in filing the appeal inthis court. The landlord comptey alleged that the premises were let out tothe tenant company as from 1. 11. 1955 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1. 940. 00. Thetenant company was also to pay Rs. 10. 00 per month as water charges whileelectricity charges were to be paid by it separately. It was stated that therewas no written lease deed executed by the tenant company in favour of theladdlord company. It was then alleged that this subletting or assigning orotherwise parting with possession of the premises by the tenant companywas without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord company andthat the landlord company had come to know of the fact of subletting abouta year ago. A notice of eviction dated 11. 1. 1969 was also stated to havebeen served on the tenant company denied that there was any relationship oflandlord and tenant between the parties. It was stated that the premiseslet out to Rai Ranjit Rai ( rai for short) who, in fact, was the tenant of thelandlord company and further that the premises were occupied by only thoseconcerns with which Rai was associated. The date of tenancy was notdisputed, but it was stated that the premises were lei out to Rai andthat this arrangement had been confirmed by means of letters exchangedbetween the parties. It was contended that it was expressly aggreedbetween the parties that Rai would have the right to use the premisesfor all such offices and concerns with which he was associated and thatthe legal possession had always been with Rai. A plea of estoppel was alsoraised on the ground that the landlord company was aware that the premiseswere being used by all the five respondents to the eviction petition. Raiwas stated to be associated with all the five respondents It is not necessaryto refer to the written statements of other respondents to the evictionpetition except to note that they also in effect supported the stand of thetenant company. Plea of acquiescene was also raised. Then the landlordcompany filed replication: It asserted the existence of the relationship oflandlord and tenant between it and the tenant company. Reference wasmade to the notice dated 1 1 1. 1969 served by the landlord company on thetenant company in which there was demand on rent and termination oftenancy, to contend that after the receipt of this notice the tenant companydid send the rent to the landlord company. It was also stated that thetenant company had been paying rent for the last about 14 years andreceipts were also being issued in its name by the landlord company. Itwas stated that during all this period it was only the tenant company whichwas recognised and accepted as tenant and that the tenant company couldnot deny its tenancy.

( 3 ) EVIDENCE in the case comprised both documentary as well as oral. In support of its case, the landlord company examined three witnesses,namely, K. S. Malik, Direct