Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot replace appellate review; interlocutory maintainability should not be re-decided absent perversity.

Under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent perversity, jurisdictional excess, gross injustice, or errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used as appellate review. The competent authority's refusal to frame and decide a preliminary issue at the interlocutory stage was consistent with expeditious disposal under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The High Court exceeded the proper scope of supervisory interference by re-examining maintainability and dismissing the application on that basis. The Supreme Court held that such interference was unjustified and that the order dismissing the application could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was justified in interfering with the competent authority's refusal to frame a preliminary issue and in dismissing the appellant's application under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.

Analysis: The power under Article 227 is supervisory and is to be exercised to keep subordinate authorities within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is not to be used as an appellate jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence or to substitute one possible view for another. Interference is warranted only where there is patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or an error apparent on the face of the record. The competent authority's decision not to bifurcate and decide a preliminary jurisdictional issue at an interlocutory stage was consistent with the object of expeditious disposal, and the High Court exceeded the permissible limits of supervisory review by entering into the maintainability of the application and by dismissing it on that basis.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unjustified, and the order dismissing the appellant's application could not be sustained. The appeal succeeds in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 227, the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal or decide disputed jurisdictional questions at the interlocutory stage unless the subordinate authority's order suffers from patent perversity, jurisdictional excess, or grave injustice.

---