https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192182 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit reappraisal of evidence merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only for patent error, breach of justice, or manifest illegality. Applying that standard, the Court accepted concurrent findings that the respondents were independent tenants of separate portions of the land, supported by separate rent payments, separate acceptance of rent, and the landlord's own treatment of them as separately liable. On that footing, service of a termination notice on only one tenant was held ineffective against the others, and refusal to interfere with the High Court's dismissal was upheld. en-us Wed, 19 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 May 2017 11:13:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192182 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit reappraisal of evidence merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only for patent error, breach of justice, or manifest illegality. Applying that standard, the Court accepted concurrent findings that the respondents were independent tenants of separate portions of the land, supported by separate rent payments, separate acceptance of rent, and the landlord's own treatment of them as separately liable. On that footing, service of a termination notice on only one tenant was held ineffective against the others, and refusal to interfere with the High Court's dismissal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192182