following ground has been raised in this appeal field by revenue: "On facts and in circumstances of case, for asst. yr. 1981- 82 learned AAC has erred in directing ITO to recompute income of assessee under head house property instead of other sources." While it is contended by Smt. Archana Ranjan, ld. departmental representative that property situate at A-27, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase- II, New Delhi, having not been registered in assessee s name, income derived therefrom, irrespective of nomenclature given to that income was not assessable as income under head 'income from house property in accordance with law laid down by Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Suhil Ansal (I.T. Ref. 84 of 1977) it is contended by Shri Hari Har Lal, Advocate, ld. counsel of respondent that assessee was owner of above mentioned property as per perpetual lease of land granted to him by Delhi Administration and as per Award given on dissolution of firm named Gurbux Singh Mahendra Singh and that, therefore, income form property even though described as 'income from commission, in agreement dt. 7th June, 1980 was assessable as income from house property. Mr. Hari Har Lal explains to us as why in agreement dt. 7th June, 1980, income of Rs. 2,000 per month derived by assessee was described as 'income from commission . According to him, cl. (5)(a) of Perpetual Lease granted by Delhi Administration provided that assessee who was lessee of above named property stood forbidden from selling, transferring, assigning or in any way parting with possession of property for period of 10 years from commencement of lease and it was only in order to get over this restriction that it was provided in Agreement entered into between assessee on one hand and Sanjiv Setia on other that assessee will receive income in shape of commission for use and occupation of property. We have considered rival submissions. We have also gone through papers submitted on side of assessee and in particular through terms of Agreement dt. 7th June, 1989 under which income in question was received by assessee. It appears to us from perusal of said Agreement that in consideration of assessee agreeing to provide to first party i.e. Sanjiv Setia, portion of factory building for purposes of setting up unit for manufacture of shoes, assessee had agreed to receive from second party commission of 1 per cent on total sales subject to maximum amount of Rs. 2,075 and minimum amount of Rs. 2,000 per month. electricity connection of certain specification was also to be provided by assessee to party of first part in above mentioned factory building. It was further provided in Agreement that disputes, if any arising under agreement were to be settled by arbitration. Even though assessee who is land owner or owner of property is entitled to use that property as land owned or as businessman, it has to be seen from relevant facts and circumstances prevailing in given case as to whether income derived is income assessable as income from house property or income derived is assessable under any other head of income. In present case, element of relationship of landlord and tenant being absent, it cannot be said that income derived was income form rent. It was not case of letting but of property under rent law out case of permitting use and occupation of portion of factory building on basis of sharing profits of shoe manufacturing business carried on in those premises on commission basis. On account of this reason, we would not be able to accept representation made by ld. authorised counsel of respondent that income was assessable under head 'income from house property . decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in case of Sushil Ansal (supra) would not be applicable to facts of present case as we in fact find that assessee was owner of property under Perpetual lease granted by Delhi Administration and under Award given on dissolution of firm named Gurbux Singh Mahinder Singh. representation made by ld. departmental representative in this regard is, therefore, not acceptable to us at all same we would not be able to subscribe to views of AAC that income derived by assessee from above named property was income assessable under provisions of s. 22/23 of IT Act. property having not been no relationship of landlord and tenant, income which was described as commission under aforementioned agreement could not be treated as rental income. For above mentioned reasons we would reverse order passed by AAC and allow departmental appeal. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. GURBUX SINGH