Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to reweigh evidence or replace lower-court factual findings absent patent error.

Under writ and supervisory jurisdiction, a superior court cannot reappreciate evidence, draw fresh factual inferences, or act as if hearing a further appeal. Interference is limited to patent, self-evident errors; findings that require elaborate reasoning or detailed evaluation do not justify correction. Applying that standard, the court exceeded the permissible scope of review by reconsidering the evidence and substituting its own view for the appellate court's factual conclusions. The appellate court's order upholding eviction was therefore restored, and the landlord's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, could set aside the appellate court's findings by reappreciating evidence and treating the matter like a further appeal.

Analysis: The High Court's interference was examined against the limited scope of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is not meant to correct every error of fact or law, and is available only where the error is self-evident. Findings that require elaborate reasoning or a long-drawn process of evaluation do not constitute patent errors. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 also does not permit the High Court to reweigh evidence or draw fresh inferences as an appellate court. The High Court itself noted that it had carefully considered the evidence on record before declining to sustain the appellate court's judgment, which showed that it had gone beyond the permissible limits of judicial review.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction in interfering with the appellate court's decision under Articles 226 and 227.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court's order upholding eviction was restored, and the landlord's challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ and supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual conclusions for those of the lower court unless the impugned finding suffers from a patent, self-evident error.

---