https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186386 A tenant does not incur eviction under notice-based rent control provisions merely because the landlord does not receive payment within the period; the decisive question is whether the tenant neglected to pay after notice. Where the tenants remitted the arrears by money order within the statutory time, that conduct negatived neglect and the eviction ground under Section 12(3)(a) failed, with Section 12(3)(b) also inapplicable. The commentary also states that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is narrow and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal; interference is justified only for grave legal error or injustice, not for reappreciation of evidence. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:27:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186386 A tenant does not incur eviction under notice-based rent control provisions merely because the landlord does not receive payment within the period; the decisive question is whether the tenant neglected to pay after notice. Where the tenants remitted the arrears by money order within the statutory time, that conduct negatived neglect and the eviction ground under Section 12(3)(a) failed, with Section 12(3)(b) also inapplicable. The commentary also states that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is narrow and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal; interference is justified only for grave legal error or injustice, not for reappreciation of evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186386