Sub-letting under rent law requires loss of legal possession and the landlord's written, specific consent.

Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, sub-letting is established where the tenant parts with legal possession of the premises, including the right to exclude others; mere retention of keys or physical control does not prevent that finding. On the facts, exclusive possession had been given to a distinct company, so sub-letting was proved. The statutory scheme also required the landlord's consent to be in writing and specific to the particular sub-letting complained of; a general permission, acquiescence, or waiver was insufficient, and no such written consent was shown. Eviction was therefore sustained for sub-letting without valid consent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the tenant had sub-let or otherwise parted with legal possession of the premises in favour of the company so as to attract eviction under the rent law; (ii) whether any permission or consent of the landlord for such sub-letting was required to be in writing and specific to the particular sub-letting.

Issue (i): whether the tenant had sub-let or otherwise parted with legal possession of the premises in favour of the company so as to attract eviction under the rent law.

Analysis: The governing principle was that sub-letting is not negated by mere physical control or retention of keys; the relevant test is whether legal possession, including the right to exclude others, has been transferred. The Court found on the facts that the company was a distinct legal entity and that exclusive possession of the premises had been given to it. The earlier findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court were accepted, and the authorities relied upon did not assist the tenant because the present case showed parting with legal possession rather than a mere permissive user.

Conclusion: The tenant had sub-let and parted with legal possession of the premises.

Issue (ii): whether any permission or consent of the landlord for such sub-letting was required to be in writing and specific to the particular sub-letting.

Analysis: Reading Section 14(1)(b) with Sections 16(2) and 16(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Court held that the legislative scheme required consent in writing, and that the consent had to relate to the specific sub-letting complained of. Mere permission, acquiescence, or a general clause in the lease was insufficient. On the facts, there was no written and specific consent by the landlord for sub-letting to the company, and the argument of waiver was rejected because no conscious relinquishment of the statutory protection was established.

Conclusion: Written and specific consent was necessary, and none was proved.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was sustained because the tenant had sub-let the premises without the landlord's written and specific consent.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, sub-letting attracts eviction when the tenant parts with legal possession of the premises, and any landlord's consent must be in writing and specific to the particular sub-letting.

---