Registered lease requirement under SARFAESI bars unproven tenants from resisting secured creditor possession action.

Tenants cannot resist possession under the SARFAESI framework where they fail to establish a legally enforceable registered lease deed against the secured creditor. The Bombay High Court examined the timing of the alleged tenancy, the mortgage and the parties' relationship with the borrowers, and found no registered instrument in favour of the petitioners. Their involvement as directors, guarantors and signatories to the loan transactions further undermined the tenancy claim. On those facts, the Court held that protection under Section 14 was unavailable and upheld the order permitting possession.

---

---

Issues: Whether tenants claiming protection against possession under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, could resist the secured creditor's action in the absence of a registered lease deed.

Analysis: The Petitioners asserted tenancy rights over the secured properties and sought protection from dispossession. The Court examined the dates of tenancy, mortgage, and the relationship of the Petitioners with the borrowers and guarantors, and noted the absence of any registered instrument of lease in their favour. It relied on the binding legal position that protection under the SARFAESI framework is not available to occupants who cannot establish a legally enforceable registered lease against the secured creditor's enforcement action. On the facts, the Petitioners were also connected with the borrower entities as directors, guarantors, and signatories to the loan transactions, which reinforced the rejection of their claim for protection.

Conclusion: The Petitioners were not entitled to protection against action under Section 14, and the order permitting possession was upheld.

---