Supervisory review under Article 227 cannot reweigh evidence where sub-letting findings by the fact-finding forum are reasoned and sustainable.

Under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court may interfere with a final fact-finding tribunal only where findings are perverse, ignore material evidence, or rest on impermissible inferences; it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view. In a landlord eviction dispute under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, exclusive occupation by third parties may support an inference of sub-letting, and monetary consideration may be inferred from proved facts even without direct evidence. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its supervisory limits and the Appellate Tribunal's finding of sub-letting and eviction order were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was justified in interfering with the Appellate Tribunal's finding of sub-letting and setting aside the eviction order under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the admitted occupation of parts of the premises by three doctors amounted to sub-letting, i.e. exclusive possession and parting with possession for consideration, or merely permissive use. The Court reiterated that in a landlord's eviction case the landlord must prove exclusive possession of a third party and monetary consideration may be inferred from proved facts where direct evidence is unavailable. It accepted the legal limits on supervisory review under Article 227, namely interference only where findings are perverse, ignore material evidence, or rest on impermissible inferences. On the facts, however, the Court held that the High Court overstepped those limits by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own view for that of the final fact-finding forum, despite the Tribunal's reasoned conclusion that the doctors occupied exclusive portions with separate facilities and that the arrangement supported sub-letting.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and its finding of perversity was itself unsustainable; the Appellate Tribunal's eviction order was restored in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order based on sub-letting stood revived, and the appellant succeeded while the respondents were required to vacate on the terms directed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, a High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view for that of the final fact-finding authority unless the impugned findings are truly perverse, ignore material evidence, or rest on impermissible inferences; admitted exclusive occupation by third parties may support an inference of sub-letting and monetary consideration.

---