Chopra vs Pushpa Sales

You guys, remember the case where a tenant sub-lets? So, the Supreme Court in Chopra vs Pushpa Sales (2007) ruled that such sub-lease without the landlord's consent is void. I mean, what's the point of consent if you can just assign the lease? The court said you need express consent from the landlord, but what if you don't have that on record? This is just basic property law, right? You gotta agree on who's letting out the property. Now, I know some of you might say it's harsh on tenants, but the court's logic was that without consent, it's a case of trespassing. What do you guys think - is the court's judgment fair?