https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90525 The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal. en-us Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:20 +0530 Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90525 The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case of pre-existing tenancy rights, lacking convincing evidence such as rent receipts or bills predating the SARFAESI demand notice. Reliance on post-demand rent deposits and uncorroborated references to tenancy were insufficient. The 1st Respondent's delay in asserting tenancy rights and failure to approach the DRT timely undermined his claim. The High Court erred by ignoring these factors and ordering mandatory restoration without a compelling case. Consequently, possession remains with the Appellant, and status quo is maintained pending the securitization application's disposal. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90525