https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774852 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. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774852 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774852