No amount of acquiescence on the part of the landlord can amount to according permission in writing to sublet the premises by the tenant.

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.

1. The landlord has directed this revision petition against the order dated 1st February, 1988 of the Appellate Authority, Karnal, dismissing his appeal by confirming the order of the Rent Controller. In brief the facts are that Mukand Lal landlord rented out the shop in dispute situated at Gharaunda to Gobind Lal respondent vide rent note Ex.A.1 dated 5th January, 1967, with effect from 1st January, 1967 at monthly rent of Rs. 34/-. Aforesaid Gobind Ram is running the business of commission agent in the shop, in the name and style of M/s Diwan Dass Rameshwar Dass. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of subletting a portion of the same to respondent No. 2, i.e. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, without his written consent for a certain period. The tenant, respondent No. 1, denied the allegations of the landlord regarding subletting. However, the Warehousing Corporation admitted having taken a portion of the shop in dispute to be used as a Godown after payment of rent to M/s Jivan Dass Rameshwar Dass on two occasions, i.e. from 3rd July, 1969 to 7th August, 1969 and 14th November to 3rd December, 1969. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application by holding that the tenant has not parted with possession of the property in dispute and thus it was not a case of subletting to the Haryana Warehousing Corporation. It was further held that as both the parties agreed to enhance the rent before the Rent Controller on 24th March, 1976 in an application under Section 4 of the Act, a new tenancy came into force and the default of the tenant committed in the year 1969 regarding subletting even if taken to be true is of no consequence. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, vide its impugned order partly accepted the contentions of the landlord, that it was a case of subletting but in view of the creation of a new tenancy with effect from 1st January, 1976 the above-referred default of the tenant in the year 1969 was held to be of no consequence.

2. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in view of the specific provisions of Section 13(2)(ii) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, no amount of acquiescence by conduct or otherwise on the part of the landlord will condone an act of subletting by the tenant as the statute provided the consent of the landlord in writing. He had placed reliance on the findings of this Court in Shambhu Datt and another v. Balwant Lal, 1968 P.L.R. 790 as well as in Kartar Singh v. Shri Vijay Kumar and another, 1978(1) R.L.R. 608 Mr. C.B. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, admitted that a consent of the landlord in writing is required for subletting, but maintained that in the present case the findings of the Appellate Authority regarding subletting are erroneous as the tenant had not parted with the possession of the any portion of the shop in dispute, as it is a simple case of allowing the Warehousing Corporation to place some bags containing grains at the shop for a few days at a rent of 6 paise per bag per month. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the findings of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan and others, 1988(1) RCR 629 (SC) : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1362.

3. The law is well settled on the point that no amount of laches and acquiescence on the part of the landlord can amount to according permission in writing to sublet the premises by the tenant. The findings of this Court in Sambhu Datts case (supra) and Kartar Singhs case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be referred in support of this conclusion.

4. The question then arises whether under the circumstances of this case, the tenant had exclusively parted with the possession of the portion of the shop in dispute in favour of Warehousing Corporation. The learned Appellate Authority had relied upon the statement of A.W.2 Kulbhushan