TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court's dismissal of the special civil applications under Article 227 called for interference, and whether the respondents were independent tenants so that the notice of termination served on only one of them was invalid.
Analysis: The record showed that the respondents had been entered as protected tenants after inquiry, had separately paid rent which was accepted separately, and had been treated by the landlord in subsequent proceedings as persons separately liable in respect of the lands in their respective possession. On these facts, the finding that they were independent tenants of separate portions of the land was supported by the evidence. The Court also reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not meant for reappraisal of facts merely because another view is possible, and interference is justified only where there is a patent error, breach of justice, or manifest illegality. No such infirmity was shown in the concurrent findings regarding tenancy status, validity of notice, or rent liability.
Conclusion: The challenge to the finding that the respondents were independent tenants failed, and the notice of termination served only on one respondent was rightly held invalid. The refusal to interfere under Article 227 was justified, and the appellants were not entitled to relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
