M. K. CHAWLA, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Sheel Kumar Saxena (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), is the owner of the premise bearing no. . C-16, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He filed a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide necessity u/s 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rrent Control Act, against Shri K B. Mathur, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) in respect of ground floor portion of the main Bungalow comprising three bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining room, kitchen, lavatories, verandah, lawn and open compound on the back. The tenant contkested the petition. ( 2 ) IN support of his case the respondent-landlord examined himself and Shri Raj Pal Singh from the office of the Commissioner of Police to prove that the respondent has retired from Police service w. e. f. 31st March, 1983 and he Is required to vacate the government accommodation by 30tseptember, 1984. ( 3 ) THE petitioner produced three witnesses, besides appearing as his own witness. In order to succeed, the respondent was required to satisfy the following condition?:- (I) that he is the owner of the suit property; (II) that the premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purpose only and has been used as such; (III) that the respondent does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller in his detailed and well-reasoned Judgment has come to the conclusion that the respondent is the owner of the premises in question and there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. There was serious contest on the question of purpose of letting. On the basis of the evidence, the court below pointed out and relied upon as many as 14 circumstances. to conclude that the premises were let out and used for residential purposes only. On the third aspect, the lower court was convinced that the respondent requires the premises bona fide for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and that he does not have any other reasonably alternative suitable residential accommodation. ( 5 ) IN the present petition. the petitioner tenant does not challenge the finding of fact that the respondent landlord is the owner of the suit properties. His main contest is against the findings on the other two aspects. ( 5 ) IN the present petition. the petitioner tenant does not challenge the finding of fact that the respondent landlord is the owner of the suit properties. His main contest is against the findings on the other two aspects. ( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the eviction petition, it is nowhere pleaded that the premises were let out to the tenant for residence only. ( 7 ) THE only document on which the respondent relies is the copy of the lease-deed dated 30th November, 1974 wherein the purpose of letting is mentioned as residential only. According to the learned counsel, this lease-deed cannot be looked into as it is an unregistered one and inadmissible in evidence to prove its terms. Reliance was placed on the Judgment reported as (1) Satish Chand v. Goverdhan Dass, AIR 1984 S. C. 143, wherein on this aspect of the matter, it was observed that, "the unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was clearly inadmissible in evidence under Sec. 49 of the Registration Act, except for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of the defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It follows that the unregistered draft lease agreement Ex. B-2 was inadmissible in evidence to prove the transaction of lease. It was also ineffectual to create a valid lease for a renewed term of nine years for want of registration as required under Sec. 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act. ( 8 ) LET us examine in detail this aspect. This case related to a tenant holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a situation, where a person holds over under an unregistered lease and continues in possession by paying the monthly rent, the holding over must be held as a tenancy from month to month. This is not the case here. ( 9 ) THE execution of the lease is not in dispute. The absence of registration by itself would no: prevent the admitted contents of clause (5) of this deed being seen for determining the purpose for which the property in question was let which is a collateral transaction. This very question came up for consideration in case (2) A. N. Pareikh v. N. H. Naqvi. The absence of registration by itself would no: prevent the admitted contents of clause (5) of this deed being seen for determining the purpose for which the property in question was let which is a collateral transaction. This very question came up for consideration in case (2) A. N. Pareikh v. N. H. Naqvi. 1982 (2) R. C. R. 99. P. K. Bahri, J. while considering the effect of Section 49 of the Registration Act On the lease deeds required to he registered but not registered held, that even though the lease-deed itself is not admissible in evidence but it can be looked in to to know the purpose of letting because the same can be deemed to have The collateral purpose. I am informed by the counsel for the parties that Special Leave Petition against the Judgment of Bahri, J. has since been dismissed in Jimini by the Supreme Court. ( 10 ) THE learned lower court has also taken pains in disposing of this objection and has come to the conclusion, with which I fully agree, that an unregistered lease agreement is admissible in evidence for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession which includes and extends to prove that the purpose of letting was residential. It constitutes a separable collateral transaction which, by itself, does not create an interest or right in the property of the value of Rs. 100 or more. In these circumstances, in my view, the lower court was justified in relying on this document for looking into the letting purpose. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then contended that even though the premises are held to have been taken on lease for residential purpose from the inception of tenancy, but its purpose changed to commersial when an additional space was carved out in the portion under the occupation of the tenant and allowed to be used for storing goods for which Rs. 800 per Eiensum was agreed to be paid. Learned counsel in support of this submission referred to and relied upon Report No. 114, lodged at Police Station Vasant Vihar, on 21st May, 1982 u/s. 448/380 Indian Penal Code. 800 per Eiensum was agreed to be paid. Learned counsel in support of this submission referred to and relied upon Report No. 114, lodged at Police Station Vasant Vihar, on 21st May, 1982 u/s. 448/380 Indian Penal Code. by the respondent-landlord alleging therein that Shri Mathur and his wife have occupied the newly constructed quarters on the first floor of the garage and have put some arti cies therein, and that he has been charging Rs. 800 for the "godown" space constructed in the main building. The reliance was also placed on the affidavit of Shri Saxena the respondent landlord, filed in Cri. M (M) 256/82 re. Thatairways International Ltd. v. Shri Randhir Singh. SHO, P. S. Vasant Vihar. wherein it is alleged that the additional space of 15 X 4i within the tenanted premises was allowed to be constructed for being used as godown by the company and Rs. 800 was charged in addition to the existing rent from the petitioner in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of District Manager of Thai Airways International. This document according to the learned counsel proves that. the purpose of letting was changed from residential to commercial. ( 12 ) THIS contention on the face of it is devoid of any substance inasmuch as the godown space referred to in the report is not for the space in the main building but above the garage. This very plea of the landlord was, however, negatived in the Judg- ment of N. N. Goswamy, J. (Ex. RW/26) holding that the construction of toilet and store existed before january, 1980. It has a temporary structure and had to be demolished for which the Thai Airways agreed to pay Rs. 800 p. m. This voluntry additional increase in rent was not for any other space, but over the garage block. The tenant now cannot be allowed to take a different stand which was taken before the criminal proceedings. ( 13 ) EVEN for that additional space, the rent was being paid by Thai Airways International and not by the tenant. This is lather the case of the petitioner-tenant himself. To arrive at that conclusion one has ouly to refer to the averment of the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Civil Suit No. 366/63) filed by M/s. That Airways International Ltd. against Shri Saxena the landlord. This is lather the case of the petitioner-tenant himself. To arrive at that conclusion one has ouly to refer to the averment of the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction (Civil Suit No. 366/63) filed by M/s. That Airways International Ltd. against Shri Saxena the landlord. This plaint is signed and verified by Shri Mathur, the petitioner-tenant, Managing Director (Northern India) as an attorney of the plaintiff-company. The plaint is quite a detailed one containing the events which happened from the inception of the tenancy till the filing of the roton the 1st of March, 1983. In this case, the plaintiff admits that by an agreement of lease dated 30-11-74, Shri Mathur was let out the residential portion of the property in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 1500. On the same day, by a separate agreement, the garage block consisting of two garages Was let out to Smt. Satbir Mathur wife of Shri K. B. Mathur and since then they are in occupation of whole of the building. in para No. 7, however, it is averred that on or before January, 1980 at the request of the plaintiff-Thai Airways, through its District Manager and Principal officer Shri K. B. Mathur, the defendant (Mr. Sheel Kumar Saxena) put up a room and a toilet- cum-bathroom on the northern portion, over the said garages with asbestos sheets and allowed the plaintiff to use the same for storing its records and other odd articles and use by the staff at the rent of Rs. 800 p. m. This arrangement was made when the landlord represented that he would without delay put up two pucca rooms and a toilet and two bathrooms on the said garages after obtaining primer permission from the DDA. later on it was also clarified in the plaint that the said kucha structure and the toilet-cum-bathroom over the garage was described as "the godown". This arrangement continued till 21-5-1982. For this period, the rent of this so-called garage portion was admittedly being paid by Thai Airways International and not by Shri Mathur personally. This averment completely demolishes the case of the tenant that Rs. 800 was being paid By them for the additional accemmodation in the main building. ( 14 ) EVEN otherwise, the rent of Rs. 8oo could not be for a very small portion allowed to be used in the main building itself. This averment completely demolishes the case of the tenant that Rs. 800 was being paid By them for the additional accemmodation in the main building. ( 14 ) EVEN otherwise, the rent of Rs. 8oo could not be for a very small portion allowed to be used in the main building itself. This space is under the staircase leading to the roof of the building. The area of this godoqn if it can be called so, is not more than 7 sq. yds. whereas for whole of me maia building constructed over an area of 1000 sq. yds. the petitioner tenant was paying Rs. 1500 only. Further more, the tenant would not like to pay an additional sum for the use of the space which is already under his occupation from the very beginning. ( 15 ) IN these circumstances, it cannot he held that initial residential user changed to commercial, when the storage of printing material was only for a limited period of a year or so. ( 16 ) THE following amongst other circumstances, based on material evidence which siands proved on record further sfrengthens the view that to start with the purpose of letting was residential and the tenant continued to use the same for that purpose only : (I) Shri Mathur is a high-ranking officer in the That Airways International. He was not engaged in any commercial activity in the premises and there was no question for him to acquire the premises for residential-cum -commercial purpose. (II) During the course of the period of tenancy, there was an exchange of correspondence between the landlord and the tenant. Some of the letters of the petitioner-tenant have been placed and proved on record as Ex. AW 2/9 to 2/12. In almost all the letters, the tenant himself has described the user of the premises as residential. (III) The case of Thai International has all along been that the accommodation was taken on rent for the use and occupation of their District Sales Minager for his residence. (IV) Admittedly before the filing of the present petition for eviction, the respondent landlord served the petitioner-tenant with a notice a copy of when is 589 Ex. AW-2/4, stating theerin that premises were let out to the tenant tor his residence and that the home are now required by the landlord for his residence and for the residence of his family member. AW-2/4, stating theerin that premises were let out to the tenant tor his residence and that the home are now required by the landlord for his residence and for the residence of his family member. In reply to this notice unfortunately, the petitioner did not take the stand that the premiscs have been let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. (V) Even though in the written statement to the petition for eviction, the petitioner tenant asserted that the premises were taken on rent for carrying out nonresidential activity, in as much as in a very small portion of the main building he was running his office of M/s. That Airways International where he was employed. This has not only been controverted by the That International in the letter Ex. AW-2/7 dated 15-1-75, but this plea is otherwise not convincing as a reputed company of the status of M/s. That International would not like to operate from the residence of one of its officers. They would like to have a regular office capable of being used as such. However, in evidence, the stand of Shri Mathur is that the parr of the premises was being used for storage of goods/printed material of Thai International. Even for this there is no convincing and reliable evidence. Moreover, nothing prevented the tenant to produce an officer of the company to depose about the purpose for which a part of the building was being used and if at all it was with or without the consent of the company. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner-tenant, does not dispute the fact that a substantial portion of the premises was being used as residence. It is not even the case of the tenant that the substantial portion of the premies was being used for commercial purpose, to the knowledge of the landlord Rather it is neither pleaded nor proved that any particular portion of the premises has been exclusively used for running office or for storing purposes. ( 18 ) IN the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. the user of the premises was described as residential. The additional space which were being used for storing the publicity material was described as godown situated on the first floor of the garage block and not in an open space within the residential portion of the premises. the user of the premises was described as residential. The additional space which were being used for storing the publicity material was described as godown situated on the first floor of the garage block and not in an open space within the residential portion of the premises. This wilt not be considered as change in the letting purpose. ( 19 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record, it can safely be held that the premises were taken on rent for residence, the intention was to use it for residence and the tenant continued to use it for residence only. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Additional Rent Controller relied upon the following additional circumstances. ( 20 ) A. There is no material on record to suggest nor is it the case of the petitioner-tenant that from the inception of the tenancy till January/february, 1980, any particular portion of the property was used for office or even godown purposes. B. The Judgment of N. N. Goswamy, J. in Cri. Misc. (M. 444/82) (RW-6/26) clearly points out that there was no structural change in. the building, when the original plan was compared with the present plan filed in the petition for eviction. C. Respondent No. 1 That International Airways does not anywhere allege that there was open space in the main building or it was ever used by them for storage of their printed material. D. The additional sum of Rs. 800 allegedly paid as rent for the additional space was never paid by the petitioner-tenant and for that matter, he cannot take any advantage out of it. All along this amount was paid by Thai Airways International Ltd. for the use of the space over the garage block. Therefore, the pica of the petitioner that this rent was voluntarily increased by the respondent has to be negatived. E. For the sake of arguments, even if it be assumed that such a user was there, it was hardly for a year or so and it was stopped thereafter. The position then will revert back as it originally existed. From May, 1981, nothing was paid for the so-called additional space in the main building or tor the- godown over and above the garage portion. The position then will revert back as it originally existed. From May, 1981, nothing was paid for the so-called additional space in the main building or tor the- godown over and above the garage portion. F. There is no evidence to suggest that at any point of time, any employee of the respondent-company i. e. Thai International Airways was ever employed at the premises for looking after the open space or the godown. The contention that the open space was being used for storage purposes by the company, thus has no substance. In any case, this was not the duty of the tenant in his normal course of duties of employment to receive or disburse the publicity material. Such a user even otherwise cannot be held to be the conversion of user, from residential to nonresidential or commercial one. G. The voucher Ex. RW-6/1 to RW-6/23 do not relate to the period when the alleged open spacs is said to have been used for storing purposes. These vouchers relate to the period 1982- 83. Moreover, the vouchers Ex. RW-3 to RW-9 and Ex. RW-6/ 25 do not particularly specify the payment of Rs. 8001- per mensum for the use of additional space in the main building. The language of these vouchers indicates and specifies the place as godown. The combined reading of these documents leaves no room for doubt that the kacha portion above the garage meant as godown and not an open space in the building. ( 21 ) THE cummulative effect of the oral as well as documentary evidence leads to the only conclusion that the primary and dominant purpose for which the premises were taken on rent was residential and the commercial user, if any, was almost negligible and insignificant for which no advantage can be taken by the petitioner-tenant. The letting purpose throughout remained residential. On examination of this aspect, from any angle, it becomes more clear that the premises were let and used for residential purpose only. ( 22 ) ON the last aspect, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent and his wife in fact do not need the premises for their own use. The respondent according to the learned counsel has since retired from service andhe has no other income except the pension within which he cannot maintain this big house. The respondent according to the learned counsel has since retired from service andhe has no other income except the pension within which he cannot maintain this big house. The plea is that the respondent now living in a two roomed flat as a tenant which is more than sufficient for his comfortable living. In fact, according to the isarned counsel, the respondent has already entered into an agreement with one Shri Prem Goel for selling this house. The need is thus not bona fide. ( 23 ) ALL these submissions have no substance and appear to have been made with vengeance and mala fide intention to defeat the rightful claim: of the respondent-Jandlord. No doubt the respondent has retired from service but he has an independent income besides earning his pension of Rs. 1100/ per mensum. After his retirement he has joined service in a private company. He retired as additional Commissioner of Police and has a status in life. He has two married daughters who normally visit their parents quite often. The intention of the respondent from the very beginning was to let out the house till the period he was to retire. It is unfortunate that the petitioner has succeeded in prolonging the agony of the respondent for many years, with a view to deprive him of his right to the enjoyment of the fruits of his hard-earned income by living in. his own house. In the evening of his life, the respondent wishes to live peacefully in his own house and wants to live there for the rest of his life. At least he would have the consolation of living a peaceful retired life in his own house. ( 24 ) THE petitioner tenant has- all along been suppressing the fact of his having acquired an alternative suitable accommodation. Of his own showing, he has purchased a big residential house no. E-2, Malviya Nagar Extension, New Delhi. This house is lying vacant since March, 1987. This position is admitted by the petitioner when he appeared as RW-6 in the trial court. The relevant portion of his statement is as under :-- "i have got my own house. It is correct that it is lying vacant. It is correct that no. is E-2, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket. It has been vacated by my tenant on 15th March. The relevant portion of his statement is as under :-- "i have got my own house. It is correct that it is lying vacant. It is correct that no. is E-2, Malviya Nagar Extension, Saket. It has been vacated by my tenant on 15th March. 1987 (objected to regarding all the questions regarding respondents having got no house in Saket ). It is correct that the Saket house is double-storeyed residential house. " This being an admilted position, the petitioner certainly is not entitled to the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act. On this short ground, he is liable to be evicted. On the other hand. the respondent does not own any other house. He has vacated the Government allotted accommodation and has shifted from one rented accommodation to the other. This to my mind is a fit case where the respondent actually needs the accommodation and bona fide requires for his residence and that of other members of his family. ( 25 ) THE finding of the learned Addl Rent Controller is based on the oral as well as documentry evidence placed and proved on record. It is also in accordance with that well settled judicial pronouncements by this Court as also by the highest court of this land which have been discussed in minute details. The impugned Judgment does not call for any interference. The revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine. The petitioner, however, is given one month s time to vacate the premises and hsnd over its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent. No order as to costs.