Concurrent findings of fact on rent revision and service charges cannot be re-appreciated under Articles 226 and 227.

The Petitioner, a tenant of a shop owned by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), challenged an Eviction Order dated 27.03.2017 and a subsequent Appellate Judgment dated 05.12.2018.

The Petitioner’s original lease expired on 31.01.2011.

Although a fresh lease deed was never formally executed, the Petitioner participated in a Zonal Rent Negotiation Committee (ZRNC) meeting on 19.03.2013, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) accepting a revised rent of ₹4,961/-, but continued to pay the old rent of ₹2,090/-.

LIC terminated the tenancy via notice on 23.09.2015.

The Petitioner challenged the levy of water charges for common facilities and the liability to pay revised rent in the absence of a signed lease.

1. Whether the Petitioner was liable to pay the revised rent notwithstanding the non-execution of a formal lease deed.

2. Whether the levy of water charges was valid given that the facilities were common and not exclusive to the Petitioner’s cabin.

3. Whether the Petitioner qualified as an "unauthorized occupant" under the Public Premises Act.

Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, which defines "unauthorized occupation" as the continuance of a person in public premises after the authority under which they were allowed to occupy has expired or been determined.

Supreme Court precedent Ashoka Marketing Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank, confirming that the determination of a lease (by expiry or notice) renders an occupant unauthorized.

The principle of limited supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which precludes reappreciation of evidence unless there is patent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that while a physical lease deed was missing, the Petitioner’s admission of signing the MOU and attending the ZRNC meeting established a consensus on the revised rent.

The Court reasoned that the LIC was justified in not renewing the lease due to the Petitioner’s persistent defaults in paying the agreed enhanced rent.

Regarding water charges, the Court held that the availability of common toilet and water facilities on the ground floor was sufficient to justify the levy, noting it "matter of common sense" that an occupant uses such facilities during the workday.

Since the tenancy was legally terminated via notice under the General Clauses Act (service of which was not contested), the Petitioner fell squarely within the definition of an "unauthorized occupant".

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Eviction Order and the Appellate Judgment, concluding that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower authorities.