https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281058 Eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was upheld because evidence showed that a flat had been acquired in the tenant's wife's name and was available as alternative residential accommodation. The order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree had attained finality, and the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal were not displaced. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have used Article 227 to reopen the matter or remand it in the absence of any basis to disturb those final findings. The remand was set aside and the eviction and tribunal orders were restored. en-us Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2019 15:45:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281058 Eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was upheld because evidence showed that a flat had been acquired in the tenant's wife's name and was available as alternative residential accommodation. The order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree had attained finality, and the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal were not displaced. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have used Article 227 to reopen the matter or remand it in the absence of any basis to disturb those final findings. The remand was set aside and the eviction and tribunal orders were restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281058