Consent in writing for subletting under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, need not be obtained before the subletting, and consent obtained after subletting is valid.

( 1 ) THIS is landlord s second appeal under section 39of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal up-holding the order of the Additional Rent Controllerdismissing the application for eviction of the tenant.

( 2 ) ONE Kalsum Bi was the owner of the premises bearing municipalnos. 1817 to 1821. M/s. Bhagwan Dass Faqir Chand (hereinaftercalled the Tenant ) became a tenant under Mst. Kalsum Bi about25/30 years ago. Portions of the property were sublet from time totime to various persons. A part of the property was sublet to M/s. Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate (hereinatfer called the landlord ). Theentire building was purchased by the landlord in 1958 from Mst. Kalsum Bi through her attorney Habib ul Rehman. Thereafter, anapplication for eviction of the tenant under clauses (b) and (g) of theproviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as Act of 1958) was made on thegrounds that the tenant had sublet the premises without obtaining theconsent of the land-lord in writing and that the landlord required thebuilding bona fide for the purposes of reconstruction. It was allegedthat shop No. 1818 was sublet in 1955 and that Balakhana, bearingmunicipal No. 1817, was sublet by the tenant to the land-lord somewhere in 1956. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground that he was authorised to sublet and had obtainedconsent in writing from Mst, Kalsumbi. He denied that landlord required the building for reconstruction.

( 3 ) MST. Kalsum Bi had served a notice of ejectment on the tenant in1956 (Exh. R-1) on the ground that he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the part of the tenancy premises without the consent of the landlord (Mst. Kalsum Bi) and substantialdamage had been caused to the premises. By a writing, Exh. R-2. dated 29-6-1956 on the back of notice Exh. R-l, Habib Ul Rehman,mukhtiar of Mst. Kalsum Bi, cancelled and withdrew the notice inconsideration of the tenant having agreed to pay rent at an enhancedrate of Rs. 185. 00 per month instead of Rs. 137/8. 00 per month. Simultaneously two rent receipts Exhs. R-26 and R-27 were issued by Habibul Rehman in favour of the tenant. Exh. R-26 was in respect of therent from December, 195 5/04/1956 at the rate of Rs. 137/8. 00per month whereas Exh. R-27 was in respect of rent for the month ofmay at the rate of Rs. 185. 00 per month. The tenant continued to payrent at this rate till the building was sold to the landlord (Exh. R-27 tor-41 ). It was thus pleaded that writing Exh. R-2 and the rentreceipts amounted to consent in writing for the acts of sub-letting.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusionthat two sub-tenancies had been created prior to the coming into forceof the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as Act of 1952) while the remaining sub-tenancies were created subsequently. He also found that Mst. Kalsum Bi had given her consent inwriting to sub-letting through Habib ul Rehman. He did not acceptthe contention of the landlord that he bona fide required the premisesfor reconstruction. The application of the landlord was, therefore. dismissed.

( 5 ) THE landlord preferred TO an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunalagainst the order of the Additional Rent Controller. The Tribunalfound that the writing Exh, R-2 was genuine; that it was not necessaryto obtain the consent in writing in terms of Section 14 (1) (b) of theact of 1958 before creating the Sub-tenancies; and that the consentgiven by Mst. Kalsum Bi through her attorney Habib ul Rehman wasnot illegal. The Tribunal also up-held the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlord did not require the premises bonafide for reconstruction and dismissed the appeal.

( 6 ) WHEN this matter came up before 1. D. Dua, C. J. (now Hon blejudge of the Suprem Court) he decided to place the appeal before a Division Be