The rights and obligations of successors-in-interest of the tenant continue after the death of the original tenant, and sub-tenancy without the consent of the landlord is not valid.

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

1. Ram Lal son of Hardwari Lal, the landlord now represented by his legal representatives-the present respondents, instituted an application for ejectment of the tenant from the shop in question.

2. It is the case of the landlord-respondents that the shop had been given on rent to Dr. Mulakh Raj at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month under rent note dated July 12, 1979 and that Mulakh Raj had subsequently died and that his brother Karam Chand-respondent No. 1 in the petition had taken over the charge of the shop in his place. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are the legal representatives of Dr. Mulakh Raj also became tenants in the premises in dispute. Ram Lal also impleaded on be Prem Chand as respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application alleging that he was a sub tenant in the demised premises. Several pleas were taken up in the ejectment petition but the only which now survives is as to whether Dr. Mulakh Raj had sub-let the premises to Prem Chand, aforesaid.

3. The Rent Controller in his order dated May 06, 1983 held that from the evidence on record documentary as well as oral, it was clear that no sub tenancy had been created by Dr. Mulakh Raj in favour of Prem Chand. Reliance was primarily placed on the fact that the landlord had chosen to keep quiet for almost 16 years after the alleged creation of the tenancy which also showed the acquiescence of the landlord to the creation of the sub tenancy.

4. An appeal was thereafter, preferred by the landlord and the Appellate Authority reversed the findings relying on the statement made by Prem Chand-respondent No. 2, who appeared as RW5 admitted that he had taken the shop in dispute from Dr. Mulakh Raj and that the same had been taken with the consent of the landlord. Further reliance was placed on the statement of Prem Chand when he stated that he had earlier been working as an Optician with Dr. Mulakh Raj and that thereafter, he had become a sub tenant under him on a: rent of Rs. 40/- per month. The present petition has been filed by the tenant.

5. At the very outset, Mr. S.K. Vij, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has argued that the ground of sub tenancy was no longer available to the landlord as the ejectment application had been filed against the L.Rs. of the deceased tenant Dr. Mulakh Raj and as such, they would not be liable to ejectment in the light of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in A.S. Sidochana v. Dharemalingam, 1987(1) R.C.R. 213.

6. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for the landlord has however, pointed out that the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Supreme Court had been specifically over d by a larger Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Imdad Ali v. Keshav Chand and Ors., 2003(4) S.C.C. 635 in which it was observed that by reason of death of the original tenant, a new tenancy was not created and the successor-in-interest of the tenant continued to hold his tenancy right subject to the rights and obligations of predecessor.

7. In the light of what has been held above in the subsequent judgment various arguments with regard to maintainability of the ejectment application on the ground subletting is no longer relevant.

8. The learned Appellate Authority, as already noted above, has relied upon specifically on the admission made by Prem Chand himself who clearly admitted that he had been inducted as tenant by Dr. Mulakh Raj on a rent of Rs. 40/- per month but with the consent of the landlord, Admittedly, the consent visualised under Section 13 of the Act, is a written consent, Admittedly too, no such written consent has been forthcoming in the evidence. It must, accordingly, be held that Prem Chand had been inducted as a sub tenant without the consent of the landlord.

9. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.