Valid tenancy must be proved to resist SARFAESI possession; unsupported tenancy claim failed without registered lease or creditor consent.

A claimed tenancy can resist SARFAESI possession only if it is legally valid and supported by proper proof. Here, xerox rent receipts were insufficient, the earliest receipt post-dated the mortgage, and no registered instrument showed a lease for more than one year. A pre-mortgage tenancy must be valid in law, while a post-mortgage tenancy must comply with the Transfer of Property Act and any renewal after SARFAESI notice requires the secured creditor's consent. The claimant's own description as a tenant-in-sufferance also negated protection under rent control law. The challenge to possession was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, claiming to be a tenant in possession of the secured asset, was entitled to protection against possession being taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The tenancy claim was doubted because the supporting rent receipts were only xerox copies and the earliest receipt was dated after the mortgage. No registered instrument supported a tenancy for a term exceeding one year. Under the governing principles, a lease of immovable property for more than one year requires a registered instrument, and a tenancy existing prior to mortgage can defeat possession only if it is a valid tenancy in law. A post-mortgage tenancy must also conform to the statutory restrictions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and any renewal after notice under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 required consent of the secured creditor. The appellant's own case described him as a tenant-in-sufferance, which did not attract protection of rent control legislation against SARFAESI proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish a legally protected tenancy capable of resisting possession proceedings, and the challenge to the impugned orders was rejected.

---