Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The landlord Gurbaksh Singh Mann has concurrently failed before the learned authorities below and has approached this Court through the present revision petition. 2. The landlord sought the ejectment of tenant Harbans Singh from the premises in dispute on various grounds. The only ground which survives for consideration before this Court is the ground of sub-letting. It has been claimed by the landlord that the tenant Harbans Singh had let out the premises in dispute to M/s M.D. Ali Tailors without written consent of the landlord. 3. The factum of aforesaid sub-letting by the tenant was admitted by him but it was claimed that the landlord had given him the permission to let out the premises. 4. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence available on the record, found it as a fact that the tenant had entered into a lease deed dated 14.4.1982, Ex.R-1, wherein the landlord had specifically permitted the tenant to sublet the rear portion/room of the premises without the previous consent of the landlord in writing. On the basis of the aforesaid stipulation contained in the lease deed Ex.R-1, the learned Rent Controller rejected the claim of the landlord and as such dismissed the ejectment petition filed by him. The appeal filed by the landlord also failed before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority also came to the similar conclusion on the basis Of the lease deed/rent note, Ex.R-1. Accordingly, it was held that no written consent of the landlord was required. 5. The landlord aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, has approached this Court through the present revision petition. 6. I have heard Shri Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.C. Batra, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and with their assistance, I have also gone through the record of the case. 7. The primary contention of Shri Jagdish Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant was required to prove that there was a consent in writing for sub-letting, by the landlord and unless and until the aforesaid fact was proved, any conduct of the landlord in accepting the rent or even a subsequent execution of rent note by the tenant in his favour would not take away the right of the landlord for seeking the ejectment of the tenant. The learned counsel vehemently argues that the aforesaid right having once accrued to the landlord can neither be taken to have been waived nor it can be said that the landlord has agreed for sub-letting. 8. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in (1977)79 P.L.R. 711 in the case of Jagdish Chander v. Rullia, and a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 422. 9. On the other hand, Shri J.C.Batra, the learned counsel for the tenant-respondents has argued that once the landlord had admittedly entered into a lease deed/rent note dated 14.4.1982, Ex.R-1, wherein a specific permission had been allowed to the tenant to sub-let the rear portion of the premises in question, without the consent of the landlord in writing, then the aforesaid ground for ejectment was not available to the landlord, in as much as, it would be taken that by a specific consent in writing the landlord had consented to the sub-letting by the tenant in favour of M/s M.D. Ali Tailors. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid facts and submissions of the learned counsel and in my considered view, the present revision petition is without any merit. 11. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute by the landlord-petitioner at all that on 14.4.1982, a fresh agreement of tenancy had been created by the tenant in favour of the landlord (Ex.R-1). In the aforesaid agreement, it had been specifically stipulated that the tenant would be entitled to sub-let the rear portion of the premises in question without the previous consent of the landlord in writing. Thus, when a specific consent in writing has been given by the landlord to the tenant permitting him to sub-let the aforesaid rear portion of the premises to any person, then the earlier action of the tenant in sub-letting the premises to M/s M.D. Ali Tailors could not be objected to by the landlord. 12. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel in Jagdish Chanders case (supra) and in M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. case (supra). The facts and circumstances of aforesaid judgments were totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel in Jagdish Chanders case (supra) and in M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. case (supra). The facts and circumstances of aforesaid judgments were totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Jagdish Chanders case, it was held that a mere execution of a Rent note, subsequently to the creation of sub-tenancy, without any permission for sub-letting would not amount to a written consent on behalf of landlord. Similarly, in the case of M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., it was held by the Apex Court that it was necessary to obtain the consent in writing to sub-let the premises and a mere permission or acquiescence was not deemed to be a consent in writing. However, in the present case, a specific consent/permission, has been granted by the landlord in favour of the tenant. The aforesaid authorities, as such, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find that the findings, concurrently, recorded by the authorities below, suffer from any infirmity or impropriety requiring this Court to interfere in the present revision petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.