Tenancy claims in securitisation matters require acceptable proof, and writ relief may be declined where alternative remedies exist.

A writ petition asserting tenancy rights against measures under the securitisation process was not entertained because no acceptable material was produced to substantiate the alleged tenancy. The Court also noted the availability of alternative statutory remedies and held that the dispute was not suitable for effective adjudication in writ proceedings. The petitioner was therefore left to pursue the remedies available in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition could be entertained in the absence of acceptable material establishing the alleged tenancy rights and in view of the availability of alternative remedies under the securitisation statute.

Analysis: The petition was founded on the claim that the petitioner was a tenant and that possession could not be disturbed under the securitisation process. The Court found that no acceptable material had been placed to substantiate the alleged tenancy rights. The Court also noted that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under law and that the controversy was not one fit for effective adjudication in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was left to pursue other legal remedies available in accordance with law.

---