( 1 ) THE question for decision in this second appeal is whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Briefly the facts are that Hardit Singh, predecessor of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 was inducted as a tenant in two rooms with two front verandahs, latrine and open court-yard at 118-B Kalkaji, New Delhi on a monthly of Rs. 40. 00 excluding other charges in June, 1955. Mool Chand respondent No. 1 on 1st October, 1971 filed an application for the eviction of Hardit Singh, tenant under section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ) alleging that the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bona fide for occupation for himself and the members of his family dependent upon him, that he was the owner tliereof having no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation, that he had been ordered to vacate the railway quarter No. 25-E/a, Subzi Mandi, Delhi by the concerned authorities. Hardit Singh in the written statement pleaded that he was tenant under Amir Ghand and not under Mool Ghand, that Amir Ghand alone had let the premises to him and was realising r