Sumit Narain Tiwari vs The Additional District Judge And 2 Ors. on 16 September, 2019
21. This court has consistently held that sub-tenant shall not be covered by Section 14 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. It has also been settled that there should be a specific consent of the landlord for sub-tenancy. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgments of this court in Chunno Vs. Dilip Kumar Singhal, 2018 (2) ARC 125 (Para-13), Gopal Ji vs. VIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 2006 (1) ARC 250, Angad Ram vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer IInd, Allahabad and another, 2003 (1) ARC 248 (Para-7), Datta Ram and another vs. IIIrd A.D.J., 2010 (3) ARC 373 (Para-6), Bimal Kishore Paliwal vs. IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, 2005 (2) ARC 672 (Para-15), Dharam Dass Dutta vs. VIIIth Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1992 (1) ARC 89 (Para-14, 15 and 16), Amar Nath Sharma (since deceased) vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar and others, 2009 (2) ARC 55 (paras-11 and 12), Gopal Ji son of Raja Ram, Proprietor Firm Gopalji Narendra Kumar vs. VIth Additional District Judge, 2007 (1) ARC 773 (Para-10), Hardeo Upadhyaya vs. Dr. Laeeq Ahmad and others, 1979 ARC 290 (Para-9), Vishnu Prasad vs. Ist Additional District Judge and others, 1983 (2) ARC 397 (Para-9), Prahlad Kumar vs. Siddhnath and others, 2013 (1) ARC 666 (Paras-14 and 15).