( 1 ) IS the appellant a lawful sub-tenant and if so, is he protected under sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act? This is the question in this second appeal which needs to be decided. However, first a bird eye view of the facts.

( 2 ) RAJENDER Kumar and Radhey Shyam alongwith their mother Smt. Chandra Wati were the landlords of the premises. They had let out the same to one Sudha Rajan Jain. This was on June 1, 1978. In the year 1979 the landlords filed a petition for eviction of Sudha Rajan Jain on the ground of non-payment of rent underclause. (a) of sub-section (l)ofsection 14oftheact in which an exparte order of eviction was passed on February 8, 1980. Thereafter they moved an application for delivery of possession in execution of the said order. While that applicatibn was pending one Amarjit Singh filed objections under section 25 of the Act alleging that he had been inducted as a lawful sub-tenant by Sudha Rajan jain on the basis of the consent in writing of the landlords permitting her to sub let the premises and that even a notice as required under section 17 of the Act with regard to the creation of sub-tenancy had been not only served personally but sent under certificate of posting also. He thus claimed that he was protected under section 17 read with section 18 of the Act and consequently could not be dispossessed in execution of the order of eviction. Needless to say the decree-holders found the objections unpalatable and stoutly resisted the same.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller before whom the objections were filed under Section 25 of the Act held that the appellant was not a lawful sub-tenant and that in any case no notice of sub-tenancy as required under section 17 of the Act had been proved to have been served. He, therefore, dismissed the jection petition. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal found no fault with the order of the Additional Rent Controller and agreeing with him dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal.

( 4 ) I may mention that the Mr. Amarjit Singh had died during the pendency of the objection petition before the Additional Rent Controller and consequently, his father was substituted in his place.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the Additional Rent Controller nor the Rent Control Tribunal had looked into the matter in the right perspective and consequently had arrived at wrong conclusions. His contention is that the decree-holders had authorised Sudha Rajan Jain to sub-let the premises and it was on account of that consent in writing that the premises had been sub-let by Mrs. Jain to Amarjit Singh. It is next contended that the appellant immediately on having been inducted as a sub-tenant had sent notice to one of the landlords namely Rajender Kumar under certificate of posting and had even otherwise personally served copies of that notice upon all the landlords and that for that reason it could not be said that the requirement of section 17 of the Act had not been complied with.

( 6 ) AS would be borne out from what has been recorded by me in the preceding paragraphs, the dispute revolves around principally two points, namely (i) Had there been consent in writing by the landlords tosub-let the premises to Amarjit Singh? and (ii) If he was a lawfull sub-tenant of the premises, had he served the landlords with the notice as required under section 17 of the Act?

( 7 ) CLAUSE (b)of subsection (l) of Section 14of the Act would go to show that consent to sub-let has to be in writing. Oral consent or consent by conduct or acquiescence would thus be not sufficient. The Supreme Court has laid down in M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. vs. H. C. Sharma and others 1988 ( 1 ) R. C. J. 483 that for the purpose of clause (b) of sub section ( 1 ) of section 14 of the Act consent to sub-let must not only be in writing but must be to the spec