In Brief
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from a chemist shop in Delhi on the ground of sub-letting. The tenant had allowed three medical practitioners (including a dentist) to occupy separate cabins with independent telephone connections on the mezzanine floor. The trial court dismissed the eviction plea; the Appellate Tribunal reversed it and ordered eviction; the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order under Article 227. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's factual findings that exclusive possession was parted with amounted to sub-letting, and the High Court improperly reappreciated evidence in its supervisory review. The Court distinguished between supervisory jurisdiction (limited to checking perversity) and appellate jurisdiction (de novo review). The appeal was allowed, eviction ordered, with respondents given 53 weeks to vacate.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.