https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185367 A tenant could not resist dispossession from a mortgaged property by relying on Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against enforcement by the mortgagee under the SARFAESI regime, because rent-control protection applies against a landlord and does not override the mortgagee's statutory right to proceed against the secured asset. A lease created by the mortgagor was also not binding on the mortgagee because it did not satisfy Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act: it was unregistered, inadequately stamped, and created for an impermissible period after the mortgage. The writ petition therefore failed, and the challenge to the tribunal orders was rejected. en-us Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:16:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185367 A tenant could not resist dispossession from a mortgaged property by relying on Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against enforcement by the mortgagee under the SARFAESI regime, because rent-control protection applies against a landlord and does not override the mortgagee's statutory right to proceed against the secured asset. A lease created by the mortgagor was also not binding on the mortgagee because it did not satisfy Section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act: it was unregistered, inadequately stamped, and created for an impermissible period after the mortgage. The writ petition therefore failed, and the challenge to the tribunal orders was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185367