9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interference with findings of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by a tenant against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court and the Division Bench affirming the same. The tenant challenged the interference of the High Court in the findings of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order. The landlord sought permission to determine the tenancy based on grounds of habitual default, subletting, and bona fide need. The Controller granted permission, but the Appellate Authority set aside these findings. The High Court, in a Writ Petition, reinstated the Controller's decision. The tenant appealed to the Division Bench, which upheld the High Court's decision. The tenant argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence. The landlord contended that the High Court rightfully corrected errors in the Appellate Authority's order. The Supreme Court analyzed the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution concerning findings of inferior Tribunals. While the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority, it can intervene if the lower Tribunal commits manifest errors or misinterprets documents. The Court considered the issues of habitual default and subletting as mixed questions of fact and law. It found that the tenant's repeated delays in rent payment constituted habitual default, contrary to the Appellate Authority's decision. Additionally, the Court determined that the lease agreement implied subletting based on the consideration paid by a third party for using the premises. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the High Court was justified in correcting errors made by the Appellate Authority. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to reinstate the Controller's findings regarding habitual default and subletting. The judgment highlighted the importance of the High Court's supervisory role in ensuring the correct application of law and interpretation of facts by lower Tribunals.
|
