Mortgagee enforcement prevails over rent-control protection where the mortgagor's lease fails statutory limits.

A tenant could not resist dispossession from a mortgaged property by relying on Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against enforcement by the mortgagee under the SARFAESI regime, because rent-control protection applies against a landlord and does not override the mortgagee's statutory right to proceed against the secured asset. A lease created by the mortgagor was also not binding on the mortgagee because it did not satisfy Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act: it was unregistered, inadequately stamped, and created for an impermissible period after the mortgage. The writ petition therefore failed, and the challenge to the tribunal orders was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenant could resist dispossession from a mortgaged property by invoking the protection of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against enforcement by the mortgagee under the SARFAESI Act; (ii) Whether the lease created by the mortgagor was binding on the mortgagee in view of Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (i): Whether a tenant could resist dispossession from a mortgaged property by invoking the protection of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against enforcement by the mortgagee under the SARFAESI Act.

Analysis: The protection under Section 14(1) operates in favour of a tenant against recovery of possession by a landlord. The dispute here arose from enforcement by a mortgagee against the mortgaged asset after default by the borrower. The tenant's claim could not override the mortgagee's statutory right to proceed against the secured asset merely by invoking the rent-control protection.

Conclusion: The tenant could not resist dispossession on the basis of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the lease created by the mortgagor was binding on the mortgagee in view of Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: Section 65-A regulates the mortgagor's power to lease mortgaged property and confines it to leases made in the ordinary course of management and within the statutory limits, including the maximum duration for leases of buildings. The lease in question was unregistered, on insufficient stamp paper, and was created for an impermissible period after the mortgage, so it did not satisfy the statutory conditions. A lease not conforming to Section 65-A cannot defeat the mortgagee's rights.

Conclusion: The lease was not binding on the mortgagee and afforded no protection to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the challenge to the orders of the tribunals below was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant cannot defeat enforcement by a mortgagee under the secured-creditor regime by relying on rent-control protection, and a lease created by a mortgagor binds the mortgagee only if it complies with the statutory limits governing the mortgagor's power to lease.

---