TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies protection under Delhi Rent Control Act, upholding mortgagee's rights under SRFAESI Act.</h1> <h3>Sanjeev Bansal Versus Oman International Bank Saog and another</h3> The court dismissed the petition challenging an order by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing that the protection under Section 14 of the ... - Issues:1. Protection of tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act against eviction.2. Interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.3. Rights of a mortgagee under SRFAESI Act.4. Compliance with Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act for lease duration.Analysis:The petitioner challenged an order by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal seeking protection as a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner argued that being a tenant, he was shielded from eviction under Section 14 of the Act, despite the mortgagee invoking SRFAESI Act to take possession of the property. The petitioner contended that the Delhi Rent Control Act's provisions supersede those of the Transfer of Property Act. The court noted that the protection under Section 14 is against the landlord, not a mortgagee, and the tenant's rights are safeguarded unless grounds under Section 14(1) are invoked. The court highlighted that the lease deed was executed post the mortgage, violating Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which limits lease duration to three years.The court emphasized Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, which governs the mortgagor's power to lease the mortgaged property. The court clarified that the mortgagor's leasing power is subject to certain conditions outlined in the Act. The court observed that the unregistered lease deed, purportedly for an unlimited period, did not adhere to Section 65-A requirements, rendering it invalid. The court reiterated that the mortgagor and lessee cannot undermine the mortgagee's rights, and a lessee is protected only if the lease complies with Section 65-A. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating it lacked merit and declined to interfere with the DRAT's orders.In conclusion, the court upheld the rights of the mortgagee under the SRFAESI Act and highlighted the importance of complying with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act regarding lease duration. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to legal requirements in property transactions to protect the interests of all parties involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
