https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175051 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited to keeping subordinate courts within their authority; it does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact as if in appeal. On the evidence, the District Court's finding that the premises continued to be used primarily for business, not residence, was binding and could not be reopened in supervisory review. Because that factual basis remained intact, the foundation for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was absent, and the change-of-user ground failed. The commentary accordingly states that interference under Article 227 was beyond jurisdiction and the eviction decree could not stand. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:29:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175051 Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited to keeping subordinate courts within their authority; it does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact as if in appeal. On the evidence, the District Court's finding that the premises continued to be used primarily for business, not residence, was binding and could not be reopened in supervisory review. Because that factual basis remained intact, the foundation for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was absent, and the change-of-user ground failed. The commentary accordingly states that interference under Article 227 was beyond jurisdiction and the eviction decree could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Feb 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175051