https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300773 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. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:50:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300773 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300773