Gokal Chand Mital, J.

1. Shri 108 Pujyapad Punch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin, Sri Guru Sangat Sahib Ji Udasin Nirban Kankhal, U.P , a registered Society under Act No, 21 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter called the Society) through its President Mahant Hari Dass and General Secretary Mahant Braham Parkash filed a petition for ejectment of its tenant and sub-tenants under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the) on the grounds of sub-letting, non payment of rent and materially impairing the value and utility of the premises. Mahant Sant Sarup was the additional Petitioner. The petition was contested and it was pleaded that there was written authority to sub-let contained in the rent note and the sub-tenants were inducted under that authority. The arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing which ground did not subsist. It was defied if there was any material impairment of the value and utility of the premises. The tenant pleaded that the application was not duly signed and verified by the competent person and was not maintainable. After evidence was led, the Rent Controller dismissed the application for ejectment by order dated 31.5.1972 after coming to the conclusion that there was no material impairment of the value and utility of the premises and the sub-tenancy was created by the tenant at a time when the contractual tenancy contained in the rent note was still subsisting and even if the subtenants continued to remain in possession after the expiry of the contractual tenancy by efflux of time the tenants and the sub-tenants could not be ordered to be evicted. It was also found that the application was net signed and presented by the competent person. The landlord went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority by order dated 10-8-1977 dismissed the appeal after concurring with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller in regard to the point of sub-letting and the verification and presentation of the petition. The other ground of ejectment was not challenged before the Appellate Authority. This is landlords revision in this Court.

2. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record I am of the view that no ground of ejectment has been made out in this case. The only point urged before me was regarding the unauthorised sub-letting by the tenants. Exhibit A 11 is the rent note dated 31-1-1957 executed by the tenants in favour of the Society through Amar Dass Muntzim. In this rent note there is a clear recital that the tenant is entitled to sublet, The argument raised on behalf of the landlord is that this document is signed by the tenant and not by the landlord and, therefore, from such a document it cannot be spelt out that the landlord gave its written consent to the tenant to sub-let. On the other hand, it is argued that the contractual tenancy came into being on the basis of rent note Exhibit A 11 between the parties, which is in writing. The law requires that there should be written consent from the side of the landlord. It does not require that the writing must be signed by the landlord. In further elaborating the argument, it is contended that the tenant gave the rent note to the landlord who accepted the terms of the tenancy and v, hen he filed the ejectment petition, the landlord itself produced the rent note as Exhibit A 11 and it was the basis for making a ground for eviction from the premises in dispute after accepting the terms and conditions therein to be correct. On this additional premises, it is argued that a written document Exhibit All has been produced by the landlord in Court which writing contains the terms of the contract of tenancy and one of the terms is that the tenant can sub let. Therefore, the tenant was entitled to sub-let the premises and the sub letting made by him is duly authorised.

3. On going through the provisions of the and the material brought on the record, I am of the view that the unauthorised sub- letting is not proved in this case. The requirement of law is that there should be a written consent and it does not provide for writ-ten consent duly signed by the landlord. If one is to look at different Acts, sometimes document in writing is prescribed and sometimes document in writing duly signed by the named person or the parties is required. In view of this difference mere written consent without signatures of the landlord would be enough to authorise sub-letting even on a reading of the entire scheme of the I am of the view that mere written consent would be enough and it is not necessary that the landlord should sign such a written consent.

4. The rent Exhibit A. 11 is relied upon by the landlord itself and it is the landlord who has produced the same in Court in support of its pleas. This document is in writing and contains the terms which have been agreed to between the parties. It is not a unilateral document because it recites the terms in writing which have been agreed to between the parties. It is true that it is only signed by the tenant otherwise if both the fides had signed it, it would have become a lease deed and would have required registration All the same, this document contains the written terms of the contract of tenancy between the parties as agreed to by them. One of the terms is that the tenant can sub-let the premises. Accordingly. I hold that vide document Exhibit A.11, the landlord gave written consent to the tenant to sublet.

5. The aforesaid view of mine finds full support from a decision of the highest Court in Mahabir Parshad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur 1982 (1) R.L.R. 591. There also, the written consent was contained in the rent note executed by the tenant and that was made the basis for holding sub letting to be legal.

6. There is yet another aspect of the case which came into being during the pendency of this revision. The agreed rent at the time of filing the ejectment petition in 1960 was Rs. 150/ per month. The So-ciety through its Mahant enhanced the rent of the premises to Rs. 500/- per month with effect from April, 1984, and since then till date it has been accepting the rent from the tenant at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month and had executed receipts which were produced in Court. These supervening facts are contained in miscellaneous application No 10 6/CII of 1985 Notice of this application was given to the counsel for the landlord and the landlord was given opportunity to file reply and the application was ordered to be heard with the main case. The reply was filed on behalf of the landlord in which it was admitted that the rent was increased from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 500/- per month as alleged in the application. In view of these facts, an argument was raised by the counsel for the tenant that a new tenancy has come into being between the parties with effect from April, 1984, and the revision which arises out of the ejectment petition under the previous contractual or statutory tenancy, has become infructuous, and should be dismissed as such. On the other hand, it was argued that mere change of one of the conditions of the tenancy relating to the rent, would not amount to a new tenancy and the ejectment petition and the revision can proceed and the same have not become infructuous.

7. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the argument raised on behalf of the tenant deserves to prevail. The quantum of rent is one of the material terms of the tenancy and in this case, the rate of rent has been enhanced by agreement of the parties from Rs. 150/ per month to Rs. 500/- per month. Therefore, the original contractual tenancy, which became statutory tenancy on the expiry of the agreed term of lease, continued on the same terms and conditions. In view of the enhancement of rent with the agreement of the parties, a new tenancy came into being between the parties with all other terms and conditions remaining the same except the monthly rate of rent and thus the tenant under the new tenancy can be evicted only by filing a petition on one of the grounds available to the landlord against the tenant and the previous ejectment proceedings cannot continue and have become infructuous. In this view of the matter, C.M. No. 1056/C.II of 1985 filed by the tenant is allowed.

8. The last point, which remains to be dealt with, is regarding the signing, verification and presentation of the ejectment petition by a competent person Apart from the material already on the record, the Society filed C.M. No. 1706/CII of 1985 for permission to produce copy of the Memorandum of Association by way of additional evidence. Notice of this application was given to the opposite side and it was ordered to be heard with the main case After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, the application for permission to lead additional evidence is allowed as the copy of Memorandum of Association is sought to be produced on the record. In fact this application was not seriously opposed by the opposite side nor the contents of the Memorandum of Association were disputed. On consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the findings of the two Courts below regarding filing of proper petition cannot be upheld. The tenancy was created on behalf of the Society through Amar Dass Muntzim. After the death of Amar Dass, Sant Sarup succeeded as the Muntzim and Sant Sarup collected rent from the tenant from 1961-62 till the filing of the ejectment petition in 1968. Sant Sarup is one of the applicants besides the Society. Under the, a person who is authorised to collect rent is a landlord. The tenant appeared as R. W 4 and clearly admitted that he had been paying rent to Sant Sarup on the basis of rent note Exhibit A.11 after the demise of Amar Dass. He did not dispute that Sant Sarup was not the successor of Amar Dass but pleaded ignorance. Exhibit A.l is resolution of the Society appointing Sant Sarup as the Muntzim and Mahant. A reading of this resolution along with Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Association goes a long way to show that Sant Sarup was duly appointed as a Manager and was entitled to file a petition. Braham Parkash is the General Secretary of the Society. In terms of Clause 4 of the Memorandum of Association, he represents the Society and consequently the petition filed by the Society through him and under his signatures was properly filed. Finding to the contrary re corded by the Courts below is reversed

9. As a sequel to the above findings that unauthorised subletting is not established and that the ejectment proceedings have become infructuous in view of the new tenancy, this revision is dismissed but without any order as to costs.