Article 227 supervisory power cannot reopen final concurrent findings where alternative residential accommodation is proved.

Eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was upheld because evidence showed that a flat had been acquired in the tenant's wife's name and was available as alternative residential accommodation. The order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree had attained finality, and the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal were not displaced. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have used Article 227 to reopen the matter or remand it in the absence of any basis to disturb those final findings. The remand was set aside and the eviction and tribunal orders were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether eviction was justified under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the footing that the tenant's wife had acquired alternative residential accommodation. (ii) Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and remand the matter despite the tenant's failure to challenge the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and despite concurrent findings of the courts below.

Issue (i): Whether eviction was justified under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the footing that the tenant's wife had acquired alternative residential accommodation.

Analysis: The tenant had been served but did not appear, resulting in an ex parte eviction decree. The Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal both found, on the evidence, that a flat had been acquired in the name of the tenant's wife and that the accommodation was available as an alternative residential premises. Those findings were not displaced by any successful challenge to the ex parte decree or to the dismissal of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion: Eviction under Section 14(1)(h) stood rightly sustained, and the finding of availability of alternative residential accommodation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and remand the matter despite the tenant's failure to challenge the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and despite concurrent findings of the courts below.

Analysis: The order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree had attained finality, and the courts below had returned concurrent findings against the tenant. In such circumstances, supervisory interference to reopen the matter and grant another opportunity was unwarranted, particularly when no reason was shown to dislodge the conclusion that the acquired premises were residential in nature and available as alternative accommodation.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered under Article 227 or remanded the matter.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge succeeded, the High Court's remand order was set aside, and the eviction and tribunal orders were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be used to unsettle final and concurrent findings or to revive a matter after the failure to challenge an order that has attained finality, especially where alternative residential accommodation is established on the evidence.

---