( 1 ) ON the reference application, the Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, set out at page 7 of the statement of case for our opinion : "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the rent received by the assessee from the house property is assessable as income from other sources or income from house property ?" ( 2 ) THE assessee, Smt. Mandira Mukherjee, is the daughter of Sailendra Nath Roy. A deed of settlement dated March 8, 1951, was made by the late Amarendra Nath Roy, grandfather of Smt. Mandira Mukherjee. Under the deed of settlement, he had settled the property valued at Rs. 3,00,000, including the property in question. Under the deed, he made Shri Sailendra Nath Roy, his only son, a trustee and also made provision for maintenance of his daughter and grand-daughter. As per the terms of the settlement deed dated March 8, 1951, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was to be spent on the occasion of marriage of the assessee and an amount of Rs. 100 per month be spent on her education. After defraying these expenses, Shri Sailendra Nath Roy was allowed to enjoy the estate as absolute owner thereof till his life time. Thereafter the property would vest absolutely in Subir Kumar Roy. Shri Subir Kumar Roy has also constructed some factory-shed on that land. In 1980-81, the income from this property was assessed as "income from other sources". ( 3 ) ON the basis of an affidavit filed by Shri Sailendra Nath Roy that the assessee had been in occupation of the demarcated 10 cottahs of land in C. S. Plot Nos. 4439 and 4440 of C. S. Khaitan 2533 of Mouza Behala, P. S. Behala, District 24-Parganas, as a non-agricultural tenant from the year 1985. He also declared in the affidavit that Smt. Mandira Mukherjee would continue to hold so the land through her heirs, successors, legal representatives and assignees. ( 4 ) IT is claimed that initially, the assessee was paying ground rent of Rs. 150 per month for this land and on January 8, 1977, she entered into an agreement with Shri Subir Kumar Roy, her brother, according to which she let out the land to him at Rs. ( 4 ) IT is claimed that initially, the assessee was paying ground rent of Rs. 150 per month for this land and on January 8, 1977, she entered into an agreement with Shri Subir Kumar Roy, her brother, according to which she let out the land to him at Rs. 1,800 per month with effect from January 1, 1978, and Shri Subir Kumar Roy, brother of the assessee, constructed a factory shed on this land at a cost of Rs. 80,000 and after adjusting Rs. 800 per month towards cost of the factory shed he paid the balance of Rs. 1,000 per month to the ajssessee. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced in the year 1981-82 and then in the year 1984-85. As per the assessee, she received Rs. 24,000 as gross rent from Shri Subir Kumar Roy. In the return, she claimed this income from "the house property" and also claimed deduction therefrom the rent of Rs. 2,400 paid to the assessee (? ). The assessee claimed that income should be assessed as income from the house property. ( 5 ) THE Income-tax Officer did not accept this. He pointed out that this rent of Rs. 24,000 should be treated as income of Shri Subir Kumar Roy, who is assessed under File No. 11-049-PK 1314/cal/24-Pgs. /c-Ward. But when the assessee has disclosed this income he assessed the income as shown by the assessee as "income from other sources". ( 6 ) IN appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relying on the affidavit of the grandfather of the assessee has taken the view that the rental income of the assessee should be assessed as "income from the house property" as shown by the assessee. ( 7 ) IN appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the assessee is not the owner. Therefore, there is no question of assessing this rental income as "income from house property". In paragraph 16, the Tribunal found that in 1981-82, Shri Sailendra Nath Roy, father of the assessee, was treated as owner of the land for his life time only and the factory shed on that land has been constructed by Shri Subir Kumar Roy, brother of the assessee. Even this income has been shown by Shri Subir Kumar Roy in his return and that has been shown as income from other sources. Even this income has been shown by Shri Subir Kumar Roy in his return and that has been shown as income from other sources. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal has finally taken the view that when the assessee is not the owner of the property in question, the rental income from that property cannot be assessed as income from house property, and, when the assessee has shown this income, that can be taxed as "income from other sources". The relevant paragraph 16 of the Tribunal's order where the finding has been given reads as under :"the Income-tax Officer assessed this income of Rs. 21,600 as income from other sources whereas the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had directed to assess the same as rental income from house property. The Income-tax Officer has not brought anything material on record. He has mentioned in the assessment order in this respect that the only source of income disclosed in the return is income from house property at 18, Pathak Para Road, Calcutta. In the assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82, it has been discussed that Shri Sailendra Nath Roy, the father of the assessee, was the owner of the land. The factory shed at the cost of Rs. 80,000 was constructed by his son, Sri Subir Kumar Roy. The rent of Rs. 24,000 was received from Sri Subir Kumar Roy for the land. It is held that this rent was received without any consideration. It is also held that it is an application of income. Sri Subir Kumar Roy was assessed in C-Ward and he has shown in his return income from other sources. His showing from other sources is immaterial. His showing the income from other sources does not affect the assessee's case. In short, it is argued by the learned Departmental representative that the assessee is getting a negligible amount of rent from Sri Subir Kumar Roy and she is collecting the considerable rent from her tenant. According to the Departmental representative she is not the owner of the property and, hence, the rental income cannot be assessed as income from house property in her hands. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer to assess the same as income from other sources is correct. There is a considerable substance in the arguments of the learned Departmental representative. According to the Departmental representative she is not the owner of the property and, hence, the rental income cannot be assessed as income from house property in her hands. The view taken by the Income-tax Officer to assess the same as income from other sources is correct. There is a considerable substance in the arguments of the learned Departmental representative. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this respect is not correct. Accordingly, we set aside his order and restore that of the Income-tax Officer. Accordingly, the Revenue succeeds on ground No. 2 of the appeal. " ( 9 ) THE admitted facts are that in the settlement deed, the land was not transferred to the assessee ; rather after discharging some obligation Shri Sailendra Nath Roy was allowed to enjoy the estate in his life time. Thereafter, the land would vest absolutely in Subir Kumar, even some factory-shed has been constructed by Shri Subir Kumar Roy, brother of the assessee. ( 10 ) ONLY one affidavit has been filed by Sailendra Nath Roy that the assessee was in occupation of the land. She has been treated the owner of the land by the. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ). Mere possession does not confer any right of ownership on the assessee. If any income from the house property is assessed as income from the house property, the assessee should be the owner of that property. Admittedly, nowhere it is said or claimed or any evidence is adduced that the assessee is the owner of the house property. In the absence of that, we find no justification to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly restored the view taken by the Income-tax Officer that the rental income shown by the asses-see cannot be treated as income of the assessee from the house property. If she has shown income, that can be taxed as "income from other sources". ( 11 ) IN the result, we answer the question in the affirmative that is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. ( 12 ) THE reference application is, accordingly, disposed of.