Pre-existing tenancy rights survive securitisation measures, with Section 17 available against summary eviction attempts.

The Securitisation Act was stated to operate in a different field from the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, so Section 35 did not override rent control protection absent inconsistency. A tenant inducted before creation of the security interest was said to retain pre-existing tenancy rights, and the secured creditor or purchaser could not use Sections 13(4) and 14 to summarily evict such a tenant. Section 17 was treated as an available remedy for an aggrieved pre-existing tenant, enabling the Tribunal to examine the tenancy and grant appropriate protection. The note concludes that bona fide prior tenants are protected and may pursue relief before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 overrides the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965; (ii) whether a tenant inducted before creation of the security interest can be summarily evicted under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (iii) whether such a tenant has a remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 overrides the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

Analysis: The provisions of the Securitisation Act were held to operate in a different field from the Rent Control Act. The special protection against eviction under the Rent Control Act continues to govern tenancies, and the non obstante clause in Section 35 of the Securitisation Act applies only where there is inconsistency. The Court found no such repugnancy between the two enactments and held that Article 254 of the Constitution of India was inapplicable because the statutes were enacted under different legislative fields.

Conclusion: The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not override the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant inducted before creation of the security interest can be summarily evicted under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Analysis: The Court read Sections 13(1), 13(4), 13(6), 13(13) and 14 of the Securitisation Act with Sections 8, 48, 69, 69A and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It held that the secured creditor can enforce only the borrower's existing rights and cannot destroy a tenancy created before the security interest. A transfer or sale under the Act does not extinguish pre-existing tenant rights, and the purchaser or secured creditor takes the property subject to such rights. The measures under Sections 13(4) and 14 therefore cannot be used to summarily evict a bona fide prior tenant.

Conclusion: A tenant inducted before creation of the security interest cannot be summarily evicted under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Issue (iii): Whether such a tenant has a remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

Analysis: Section 17 was treated as an effective remedial forum available to any person aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4), including a tenant claiming a pre-existing right. The Tribunal may examine whether the tenancy existed anterior to the security interest and may grant suitable relief, including protection of actual possession, symbolic possession, or subjecting the sale to the tenant's rights.

Conclusion: Such a tenant is entitled to invoke Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of protecting bona fide pre-existing tenants, the writ relief was declined in view of the alternative statutory remedy, and the petitioners were left to pursue relief before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The Securitisation Act does not extinguish pre-existing tenancy rights or authorise summary eviction of a tenant inducted before creation of the security interest, and such a tenant may seek redress under Section 17.

---