JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. —Albir Nath Mathur obtained an ex parte decree for eviction against M/s. Om Prakash & Company and Kusum Rani, a partner of M/s. Om Prakash & Company in respect of the groundfloor or premises of No. 90, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. Three of the partners of M/s. Om Prakash & Company, it must be mentioned at the outset, are the sister-in-law and the two minor daughters of Balbir Nath Mathur himself. When Balbir Nath Mathur sought to execute the decree for eviction, M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons who are in occupation of the premises filed an objection petition before Rent Controller, purporting to do so under S. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The objection petition was rejected by the Rent Controller. The order of the Rent Controller was confirmed on appeal, by the Rent Control Tribunal and, by the High Court, on further revision. M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons have filed this appeal with the special leave of this court.

2. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal concurrently found that Balbir Nath Mathur was the owner of the premises, that Om Prakash & Company was the tenant and that Girdhari Lal & Sons were the sub-tenants under Om Prakash & Company. The case of the appellants was that it was Balbir Nath Mathur that negotiated the lease and inducted them into possession and that they were not sub-tenants but the direct tenants of Balbir Nath Mathur. Even if they were sub-tenants only, they claimed that they were entitled to the protection of Ss. 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. They alleged that the decree obtained by Balbir Nath Mathur was a collusive decree and that a fraud had been played upon the Court to get rid of the appellant, M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons. In view of the concurrent findings that Om Prakash & Company was the tenant and M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons were the subtenants, we accept that finding and proceed to consider the question whether the appellants are entitled to the protection of Ss. 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

3. At the time when the premises was leased by Om Prakash & Company to M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons a letter executed by Om Prakash & Company and attested by Balbir Nath Mathur was passed on to M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons. By this letter, Om Prakash & Company confirmed the lease and further undertook to pay to the appellant as damages a sum calculated at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month for the unexpired period of the lease if the appellant had to vacate the premises before the expiry of the lease period of two years. Simultaneously M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons executed a letter addressed to Balbir Nath Mathur in which they stated, after referring to the lease of the house in their favour by Om Prakash & Company, that they would pay a sum of Rs. 8400/- per annum as donation to the Shree Visheshwar Nath Memorial Public Charitable Trust, a trust of which Balbir Nath Mathur and others were trustees, if they stayed in the premises after the expiry of the period of lease. Another important document to which we may make a reference is a letter dated June 10, 1975 by which Om Prakash & Company demanded payment of arrears of rent from M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons. This letter was signed by Balbir Nath Mathur himself on behalf of Om Prakash & Company. The contention of the appellants is that there was consent in writing by the landlord to the sub-tenancy, as well as notice in writing to the landlord of the sub-tenancy within the meaning of Ss. 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore the subtenants M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons were entitled to be protected against eviction.

4. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant it is necessary to set out Ss. 17(1) and 18(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : -

"17(1). Where, after the commencement of this Act, any premises are sublet either in whole or in part by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, the tenant or the sub-tenant to whom the premises are sublet may, in the prescribed man