Article 227 limits supervisory review: factual findings cannot be reappreciated to sustain eviction on disputed change of user.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited to keeping subordinate courts within their authority; it does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact as if in appeal. On the evidence, the District Court's finding that the premises continued to be used primarily for business, not residence, was binding and could not be reopened in supervisory review. Because that factual basis remained intact, the foundation for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was absent, and the change-of-user ground failed. The commentary accordingly states that interference under Article 227 was beyond jurisdiction and the eviction decree could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could reappreciate evidence and disturb findings of fact recorded by the final court of fact, and whether the eviction decree could be sustained on the basis of the disputed change of user.

Analysis: The High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 is limited to keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. It does not extend to correcting mere errors of fact or reappreciating evidence as though exercising appellate jurisdiction. Where the District Court, as the final court of fact, had found on the evidence that the dominant or primary use of the premises remained business and not residence, that factual finding could not be reopened in supervisory jurisdiction. Once that finding was accepted, the necessary foundation for eviction under Section 13(1)(a) or Section 13(1)(k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was absent.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond the limits of Article 227 in interfering with the findings of fact. The eviction decree could not stand, and the tenant succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the suit for eviction failed because the pleaded change of user was not established on the binding factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb binding findings of fact unless the subordinate court has acted outside its authority.

---