https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178599 Article 227 is an extraordinary supervisory power, not a substitute for appellate or revisional jurisdiction, and interference is justified only for grave dereliction, perversity, abuse of power, or manifest injustice. On the stated facts, the High Court was said to have erred in using that power to reopen concurrent rent control orders and enlarge time for deposit of rent arrears. The tenants were also found ineligible for Section 11(2)(c) because they did not deposit the arrears, interest, and costs within the statutory or allowed time; a stay order did not create a fresh right or extend statutory protection. The impugned order was set aside and the eviction order restored. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:21:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178599 Article 227 is an extraordinary supervisory power, not a substitute for appellate or revisional jurisdiction, and interference is justified only for grave dereliction, perversity, abuse of power, or manifest injustice. On the stated facts, the High Court was said to have erred in using that power to reopen concurrent rent control orders and enlarge time for deposit of rent arrears. The tenants were also found ineligible for Section 11(2)(c) because they did not deposit the arrears, interest, and costs within the statutory or allowed time; a stay order did not create a fresh right or extend statutory protection. The impugned order was set aside and the eviction order restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178599