https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184395 Under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court could not disturb concurrent factual findings supporting eviction unless they were perverse or wholly unreasonable. The landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act was supported by admitted circumstances, including a small family accommodation against a larger family need, and the tenant failed to rebut the presumption of bona fides. Comparative hardship under Section 13(2) also favoured eviction. The High Court erred by reappreciating evidence and relying on material that did not justify supervisory interference, so the eviction decree was restored. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2016 12:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184395 Under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court could not disturb concurrent factual findings supporting eviction unless they were perverse or wholly unreasonable. The landlord's bona fide and reasonable requirement under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act was supported by admitted circumstances, including a small family accommodation against a larger family need, and the tenant failed to rebut the presumption of bona fides. Comparative hardship under Section 13(2) also favoured eviction. The High Court erred by reappreciating evidence and relying on material that did not justify supervisory interference, so the eviction decree was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184395