SARFAESI tenancy claims require prior proof and statutory remedies, limiting Article 227 interference in secured asset disputes.

Under the post-2016 SARFAESI framework, a person claiming tenancy or lease rights in a secured asset may invoke Section 17(4A) before the DRT against Section 13(4) measures, with an appeal lying under Section 18; in that setting, Articles 226 and 227 should not ordinarily be used where an efficacious statutory remedy exists. A claimant seeking protection from enforcement must also prove a legally cognisable pre-existing tenancy through credible contemporaneous material, such as rent, tax, or utility records. On the facts described, the alleged tenant failed to produce reliable evidence of occupation or tenancy before the demand notice, so restoration of possession was not justified and the secured creditor's possession was protected pending DRT proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the direction restoring possession to the alleged tenant was justified in the absence of reliable proof of a pre-existing tenancy.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court ought to have entertained the challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India despite the statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Analysis: After the 2016 amendment, Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 enabled persons claiming tenancy or lease rights in a secured asset to approach the DRT against measures under Section 13(4), including possession measures, and the DRT's order was made appealable under Section 18. In that statutory setting, interference under Articles 226 and 227 in SARFAESI matters is unwarranted where an efficacious remedy exists. The earlier position reflected in pre-amendment authorities could not govern the post-amendment regime.

Conclusion: The High Court should not have entertained the writ/revisional challenge in the face of the available SARFAESI remedies.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction restoring possession to the alleged tenant was justified in the absence of reliable proof of a pre-existing tenancy.

Analysis: A tenant claiming protection against SARFAESI measures must establish a tenancy that legally subsisted prior to the creditor's enforcement action. Where the claim rests on an oral or unregistered arrangement, the claimant must place credible material such as rent receipts, tax receipts, or utility records to show continuous occupation and a valid tenancy. On the record, the alleged tenant failed to produce independent evidence showing occupation or tenancy prior to issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2); documents beginning after the notice were insufficient, and mere references in later documents or an attornment letter did not establish a bona fide prior tenancy.

Conclusion: The direction restoring possession was not justified and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the secured creditor's possession was protected pending disposal of the securitization application before the DRT.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides a direct remedy to a person claiming tenancy in a secured asset, High Court interference under Article 227 is improper, and a tenant seeking protection must prove a legally cognizable pre-existing tenancy with credible contemporaneous evidence before possession can be restored.

---