An unregistered lease deed cannot be admitted in evidence to prove the period of lease and the terms of the lease, but it can be used to show the nature of possession and the relationship of landlord and tenant.

( 1 ) ON 6-7-1962 an agreement of lease was reached between the respondent Smt. Girnari Devi and Gopal Dass, Dev Kumar and Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal (herein the Aggarwals) in respect of the disputed premises No. 20/1, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. One of the material conditions of this agreement was that the period of lease shall be ten years with effect from 15-7-1962. Another important term was that the Aggarwall were authorised to assign the demised premises for the use of any of the companies in which they or any of them is a director or for the use of any of the firms in which they or any of them is a partner. Out of them, Gopaldas and Dev Kumar arc since December 1959 two of the directors of M/s. Devi Dayal Metal Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (herein the appellants ). The correspondence that ensued between the parties with regard to the payment of rent from 21-5-1963 onwards shows that rent was payable and was paid by the appellants. Chatur Bhuj Aggarwal has signed all these letters as Manager in charge of the appellants. On 25 9-1963 two letters were sent on behalf of the appellants to the landlady saying "we would like to refer to the assurance you had given while we took the premises from you that you will yourself arrange for a separate electric connection for us", and "providing us the water facilities with a separate water meter". On 13-9-1971 the Advocate of the landlady served a notice on the appellants terminating their tenancy with effect from 31-10-1971. No reply was sent by the appellants to this notice. Another notice was sent on 16-2-1972 requesting the appellants to pay all the arrears of rent from February, 1970 and deliver vacant possession by 31-3-1972. The appellants advocate replied on 24-3-1972 that it was not denied that his clients (that is the appellants) were tenants in respect of the said property. It was also claimed in this reply that as per the lease deed the appellants were granted permission to use the space for business along with other sister concerns. It was further alleged that the tenancy of his clients cannot be terminated as alleged in para 5 of the notice.

( 2 ) ON 18-4-1972 the respondent landlady filed the present eviction application under Section 14 (1 ) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein the Act) against the appellants on the ground that they had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in favour of M/s. Bralco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. , and M/s. Hindustan Chains Pvt. Ltd. On 19-5-1972 the advocate of the appellants wrote to the respondent enclosing cheque drawn by Hindustan Chains for payment of rent from 1-3-1972 to 31-5-1972 in respect of the premises in the name of the appellants. But in, their written statement dated 14-7-1972 the appellants denied that they were the tenants. They stated that as per the lease agreement dated 6-7-1962 the, Aggarwals were the tenants. They further stated that the appellants and M/s. Bralco Metal Industries and Hindustan Chains Pvt. Ltd. are sister concerns and one or more of the Aggarwals are the directors in one or the other of the said companies. In para 4 of the replication, the applicant landlady stated that excepting the appellants there is no other tenant of hers in the disputed premises.

( 3 ) THE learned Addl. Controller by his order dated 17-12-1979 accepted the application and passed and order of eviction against the appellants He held that the rent has always been paid by the appellants and the correspondence between the parties was proved to show that they were the tenants. He further came to the conclusion that on the date of the application the Aggarwals were not the tenants. The learned Addl. Controller also observed that at any rate they had assigned their rights in favour of the appellants and, therefore, there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the present parties. As regards parting with possession without consent of the landlady, he held that it had taken place as t