R. C. Lahoti, J. ( 1 ). The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of assessment dated 28. 7. 94 assessing the petitioner s property to tax under Section and 176 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act for the period 1. 4. 79 to 31. 3. 88. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioner confines his challenge to the rateable value as assessed for the period 1. 10. 83 to 31. 3. 88. ( 2 ). The property in question is No. 34, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area. It is a warehouse. The assessing Authority has proceeded to treat the property as let out, treating the warehousing charges as the "rent received by the assessee and pressing into service Section 6 (ii) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. ( 3 ). The singular contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property should have been assessed as self-occupied property in as much as the petitioner is carrying on his own business therein. He has further submitted that the property cannot be said to have been let out or even. licenced to the several persons/institutions whose goods are Warehoused by the petitioner. ( 4 ). On the record, the petitioner has placed several documents (Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6) which recite the terms and conditions on which the petitioner extends warehousing services to his customers and the customers avail such services. Without extracting and reproducing the several relevant terms of the transactions entered into by the petitioner with his customers suffice it to observe that the petitioner makes available storage space to the clients wherein the goods of the clients are stored. The liability to take care of the goods is entrusted to the petitioner. He has to keep the goods in safe custody. At times loading unloading services are also extended by the petitioner to the customers. Possession over the space in which the goods are stocked remains with the petitioner. The customer does not have any right to possess or occupy the space utilised for the purpose of storing the goods warehousing charges are calculated at the rate of per sq. ft. per month and recovered. The agreement is liable to be terminated by either party subject to -notice of specified days. ( 5 ). The customer does not have any right to possess or occupy the space utilised for the purpose of storing the goods warehousing charges are calculated at the rate of per sq. ft. per month and recovered. The agreement is liable to be terminated by either party subject to -notice of specified days. ( 5 ). An essential ingredient of lease is the transfer of right to enjoy immoveable property by the landlord to the tenant. The lease agreement must vest in the lessee a right of possession for a certain time. It must operate as a conveyance or transfer to amount to a lease. ( 6 ). A warehouse is a building in which goods are stored or deposited. It is a building or place adapted to the reception and storage of goods and merchandise (See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition Vol. 44, p. 630 ). ( 7 ). Warehousing is a specie of bailment. It is also called hire of custody. To quote from Bailment by Palmer (1979 Edition) :- "locatio custodiae, or the safekeeping of goods for reward, is in many ways the classic form of bailment. Traditionally, it arises whenever goods are delivered by one party to another to be stored in return for a remuneration and redelivered on demand. The reward will normally be monetary and the delivery will generally be direct, but neither of these features is theoretically essential. Thus, there may be a bailment by way of locatio custodiae when a warehouseman attorns to the purchaser of goods, or when a sub-bailee accepts possession of goods belonging to a principal bailor. " (page 434) "the warehouseman holds the. goods as the agent of the owner until he has attorned in some way to this person, and agreed to hold the goods for him; then, and not until then, does the warehouseman become a bailee for the latter. " (page 846) ( 8 ). It is clear that a warehouseman who acts as an agent or bailee of his client or customer cannot be said to have leased or licenced the premises or any part thereof to his client or customer. The assessment made by the Assessing Authority misconstruing the warehousing agreement as a lease or licence is totally misconceived and fundamentally erroneous. ( 9 ). The assessment made by the Assessing Authority misconstruing the warehousing agreement as a lease or licence is totally misconceived and fundamentally erroneous. ( 9 ). The learned counsel for the MCD invited our attention to certain Bye Laws which have come into force w. e. f. 24. 10. 94 and provide for the manner in which rateable value of a warehouse would be assessed. Suffice it to observe that these bye-laws are not retrospective in operation and have no relevance for the case at hand. ( 10 ). For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of assessment so far as it relates to the period 1. 10. 83 to 30. 3. 1988 is set aside. The Assessing Authority is directed to make an assessment afresh treating the property as self- occupied for the period abovesaid. ( 11 ). The petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to the costs. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on 28. 10. 96 at 3. 00 PM.