SARFAESI overrides disputed tenancy claims, and challenges to dispossession must be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

A tenant claiming rent control protection cannot use that status to block a secured creditor from taking possession under the SARFAESI Act, because the Act gives overriding effect to enforcement measures taken under section 13(4) and contemplates recovery of possession without court intervention. Where tenancy rights are disputed or the tenancy is not binding on the secured creditor, the proper forum for challenge is the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, including any claim for restoration if dispossession was not in accordance with law. Rights created by a mortgagor cannot defeat statutory enforcement of the security interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tenant claiming protection under rent control law can resist dispossession by a secured creditor proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, and whether the tenant's remedy is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of that Act.

Analysis: The secured creditor, after taking measures under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, is entitled to take possession of the secured asset, and the statutory scheme gives overriding effect to the Act over inconsistent local laws. The judgment applies the principle that the Act contemplates recovery of possession without court intervention, that possession may be taken in the statutory sense contemplated by the Act and the Rules, and that any person aggrieved by dispossession can seek restoration before the Debts Recovery Tribunal if the action is not in accordance with law. A tenancy created by the mortgagor contrary to the statutory restrictions, or one not binding on the secured creditor, cannot defeat enforcement of the security interest; where tenancy rights are disputed, the proper forum is the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17.

Conclusion: The tenant cannot restrain the secured creditor from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act on the basis of rent control protection, and the tenant must work out its remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, with liberty reserved to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Rights created by a mortgagor cannot override a secured creditor's statutory enforcement measures under the SARFAESI Act, and any challenge to dispossession must ordinarily be pursued under the Act's remedial mechanism rather than through writ jurisdiction.

---