An unregistered lease deed is admissible in evidence to prove the purpose for which the premises were let, as this is a collateral purpose.

( 1 ) THIS is a landlord s second appeal directed against the judgment dated December 29, 1967 of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing his appeal and confirming the Additional Controller s judgment dismissing his eviction petition under clause (e) of section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming the respondent s eviction on the ground that the premises in dispute were required bona fide by him for his own residence and the residence of the members of his family dependent on him, as being the owner thereof, he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

( 2 ) THE premises in dispute were let out to the Respondent 1n November, 1960. A deed of lease Marked c was duly executed and admittedly signed by the parties, clause 8 of which reads as follows :-

"that the said premises shall be used for residential and clinic purpose and the tenant in no way will sublet, assign or part with possession of the same or a part thereof. "

( 3 ) THE appellant alleged that due to certain family circumstances, he had to leave Delhi temporarily and to go Calcutta, when the premises were let to the respondent. His only son Ajit Banerjee had left for United States in September, 1960 for further studies. He returned after two years and wanted to stay in Delhi. The appellant also returned to Delhi in the later part of 1962. He, his wife and his son were, accordingly without accommodation. Appellant s wife could no longer live in Calcutta due to the damp and humid climate of that place, which did not suit her. The appellant also intended to marry his son which he could not do for want of accommodation. In reply the respondent stated, that the eviction petition was mala fide. The premises had been let out to him for residence and professional purposes, and had been used as such from the very inception of the tenancy. The respondent specifically mentioned and REFERRED TO the contents of the rent note dated November 2, 1960 executed between the parties. The eviction application, therefore, it was asserted, was not maintainable and the same was prayed to be dismissed. In the replication the appellant-landlord denied having let out the premises for residential as well as professional purposes. Contents of the rent note were not denied, although it was stated that there was no legal, valid and binding rent note . The rent note dated November 2, 1960 was said to be illegal and not admissible in evidence as the same was neither engrossed on a proper stamp paper nor registered according to law.

( 4 ) THE Additional Controller came to the conclusion that the non registration of the lease deed would not prevent the same from being looked into for the purposes of ascertaining the purpose for which the premises had been let out. According to its clause 8, the premises were let for the respondents residence-cum-clinic. From an appraisal of the oral evidence and the examination of the inspection report of the local commissioner appointed for the purpose, he concluded that it left no manner of doubt that ever since the creation of the tenancy the respondent-tenant had been using part of the premises as a clinic for professional purposes. It was under these circumstances that he found the case taken outside the provisions of clause (e) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He was not impres- sed by the appellant s plea that he bona fide required the premises for his own residence, as the appellant was in service in an educational institution in Calcutta, where he had been living. The appellant s eviction petition was, therefore, dismissed.

( 5 ) IN appeal, the learned Rent Control Tribunal noticed that respite respondent-tenant s specific reliance on the lease deed for proving the letting purpose of the premises as residential-cum-professional the appellant landlord took no exception to the correctness of its contents Clause 8 of the lease-deed, according to the Tribunal, was not an essentia