In Brief
The appeal concerns whether a tenant can challenge a rent controller's vacancy declaration in a revision petition against the final allotment order, or must challenge it independently by writ petition. The Supreme Court held that a vacancy order is merely a preliminary step and can be challenged in a subsequent revision against the final order. The High Court had wrongly refused to entertain the revision, misinterpreting binding precedent. The Court also held the High Court exceeded supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by reassessing evidence as an appellate court. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court order and restoring the District Judge's reasoned decision that the tenant's family members did not constitute illegal subletting.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.