SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is the applicant. The suit was for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was based on the allegation that the defendant had unlawfully sublet the accommodation and had defaulted in payment of rent. The Court found that the defendants had sublet with plaintiff's consent and that he had defaulted in payment of rent bat since they deposited the entire rent due in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Rent Control Act of 1972, he was relieved of the liability of ejectment. The plaintiff was directed to withdraw the deposits made. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that the finding with res­pect to subletting with consent of the landlord is based on circumstantial evi­dence. Admittedly, there was no writing of the landlord granting consent or permission to the defendants to sublet the premises. That is apparent from a reading of the judgment. The trial Court has inferred implied consent from the conduct of the landlord, the tenant and the sub-tenant. Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, by clause (e) permitted institution of a suit for the eviction of a tenant on the ground that the tenant has, on or after October 1. 1946, sublet the whole or any portion of the accommodation without the permission of the landlord. The right conferred by clause (e) of Section 3 is for the benefit of the land­lord. He can waive it by deciding not to sue the tenant for ejectment, even though he may have sublet without the landlord's permission. The right can also become barred under the principle of acquiescence by conduct. In Mahabir Singh v. Anant Ram and others(A.I.R. 1966 Alld. 214. 80), it was held that where the landlord admitted that the sub-tenancy had lasted for four years with his knowledge and the rent has been paid by the sub-tenant in the presence of the landlord and on several occasions passed on to him by the tenant, a presumption of acquies­cence will arise. Such a presumption will be strengthened by the tact that the landlord offered no explanation why he had waited for ('our years before filing the suit for ejectment on the ground of illegal sub-letting and will not be dis­placed by a bare denial of the landlord that he had acquiesced.
(3.) IN the present case, the finding is that the sub-tenants were there in the premises s nice before the plaintiff purchased the property and become its land­lord. That was very many years back. Ever since she had suffered the exis­tence of the sub-tenants in the building. The finding is that the plaintiff in 1971 gave notice to the tenant complaining of illegal subletting but thereafter she took no action. She filed the present suit in 1975. The Court below had referred to certain documents showing that the plaintiff's son had been receiv­ing rent from the sub-tenants. The Court below inferred that the sub-tenants were in occupation with the consent of the landlord. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding that the landlord was barred by the principle of acquiescence was vitiated by any jurisdictional defect or error. The plaintiff was clearly disentitled to the relief of ejectment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Section 7 (3) of the Rent Control Act of 1947 which provided: "(3) No tenant shall sublet any portion of the accommodation in the tenancy except with the permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate previously obtained." ;