https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313866 Under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court may interfere with a final fact-finding tribunal only where findings are perverse, ignore material evidence, or rest on impermissible inferences; it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view. In a landlord eviction dispute under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, exclusive occupation by third parties may support an inference of sub-letting, and monetary consideration may be inferred from proved facts even without direct evidence. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its supervisory limits and the Appellate Tribunal's finding of sub-letting and eviction order were restored. en-us Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 05 May 2024 10:40:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313866 Under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court may interfere with a final fact-finding tribunal only where findings are perverse, ignore material evidence, or rest on impermissible inferences; it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own factual view. In a landlord eviction dispute under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, exclusive occupation by third parties may support an inference of sub-letting, and monetary consideration may be inferred from proved facts even without direct evidence. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its supervisory limits and the Appellate Tribunal's finding of sub-letting and eviction order were restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313866