https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293874 Supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not appellate in nature, but interference is justified where an inferior tribunal commits manifest error, misconstrues documents, ignores relevant material, or relies on inadmissible material; the findings on habitual default and sub-letting were treated as mixed questions of fact and law. Habitual default was found where rent was repeatedly paid only after coercive steps or with delay. Sub-letting was established where the tenant parted with possession for monthly consideration, the arrangement being treated as a real transfer of possession rather than a mere consignment. The High Court's interference and the permission to terminate the tenancy were sustained. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 12:54:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293874 Supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not appellate in nature, but interference is justified where an inferior tribunal commits manifest error, misconstrues documents, ignores relevant material, or relies on inadmissible material; the findings on habitual default and sub-letting were treated as mixed questions of fact and law. Habitual default was found where rent was repeatedly paid only after coercive steps or with delay. Sub-letting was established where the tenant parted with possession for monthly consideration, the arrangement being treated as a real transfer of possession rather than a mere consignment. The High Court's interference and the permission to terminate the tenancy were sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293874