Writ jurisdiction and sub-letting standards: supervisory interference is allowed for manifest error, and parting with possession for consideration matters.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not appellate in nature, but interference is justified where an inferior tribunal commits manifest error, misconstrues documents, ignores relevant material, or relies on inadmissible material; the findings on habitual default and sub-letting were treated as mixed questions of fact and law. Habitual default was found where rent was repeatedly paid only after coercive steps or with delay. Sub-letting was established where the tenant parted with possession for monthly consideration, the arrangement being treated as a real transfer of possession rather than a mere consignment. The High Court's interference and the permission to terminate the tenancy were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the Appellate Authority's findings on habitual default and sub-letting under the Rent Control Order. (ii) Whether the tenant was a habitual defaulter and had sub-let the premises so as to justify permission to terminate the tenancy under Section 13(3)(ii), (iii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the Appellate Authority's findings on habitual default and sub-letting under the Rent Control Order.

Analysis: The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is not appellate in nature, but interference is justified where the inferior tribunal commits a manifest error, misconstrues documents, ignores relevant material, or relies on inadmissible material. The findings on habitual default and sub-letting were treated as mixed questions of fact and law. On the record, the High Court's interference was found to be within the permissible limits of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the Appellate Authority's findings.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant was a habitual defaulter and had sub-let the premises so as to justify permission to terminate the tenancy under Section 13(3)(ii), (iii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order, 1949.

Analysis: Habitual default was established because the tenant repeatedly failed to pay rent within the contractual time and made payments only after coercive steps or belatedly. Sub-letting was also established because the tenant had parted with possession and received monthly consideration, and the agreement relied upon by the tenant was construed as evidencing a real transfer of possession for monetary benefit rather than a mere consignment arrangement.

Conclusion: The tenant was held to be a habitual defaulter and to have sub-let the premises.

Final Conclusion: The interference by the High Court was sustained, and the permission granted for termination of the tenancy remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, interference with an inferior tribunal's findings is permissible where the findings are vitiated by manifest error, misconstruction of documents, or disregard of relevant material, and sub-letting is made out only where parting with possession for consideration is established.

---