2025 (7) TMI 920
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ontends he paid rent to 2nd Respondent and continued to occupy the secured asset as a tenant. 4. On 09.02.2017, 2nd Respondent took a loan from the Appellant against creation of security interest on the premises. A second loan was also taken. The loan account was not serviced and became a NonPerforming Asset (NPA). Demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as, 'SARFAESI' was issued to the 2nd Respondent on 13.07.2021, requiring the latter to pay Rs.3,09,65,636.97/along with applicable future interest and charges within 60 days. The notice further stated that, in the event of nonpayment, the secured creditor would initiate measures under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI, including taking possession and sale of the secured asset. Despite such intimation, no payment was made within 60 days of receipt of notice. In the meantime, 2nd Respondent instituted an ejectment suit against 1st Respondent on various grounds, including nonpayment of rent. 5. On 02.12.2021, symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken by the Appellant under section 13(4) of SARFAESI. As per R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d restoration of possession as follows: "17. Thus, the contention of the bank that there is an alternative remedy of appeal is not accepted by this court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. By the order impugned, the right of the petitioner as canvassed in his SA, has been finally decided. A doctor who was in occupation of the premises and running his chamber, in my, prima facie, view could not be thrown away without due process of law. The issue whether the doctor was inducted as a valid tenant and/or whether his possession was legal or not, are matters which will be decided in the SA, but the occupation cannot be doubted, as available from the records. 18. Under such circumstances, the interim prayer for use of the premises as a chamber ought to have been granted to the petitioner by the learned tribunal in lawful exercise of jurisdiction vested upon it, with certain conditions. 19. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed." 11. Mr. Suri contended the High Court ought not to have entertained the matter in view of the existence of appellate remedy under section 18 of SARFAESI. We are in wholesome agreement with this submission. 12. In 2016, S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Property Act, 1882 hereinafter referred to as, 'TP Act' and renders invalid any lease created by the borrower after issuance of notice under section 13(2) without taking written permission of the secured creditor, the said section does not determine a prior lease created by a registered instrument. However, if the lessee claims tenancy through an oral/unregistered agreement, the term of the lease cannot exceed one year and the lessee is not entitled to possession of the secured asset beyond a period of one year. 16. In Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 762, a Coordinate Bench carved out an exception from the ratio in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) with regard to tenancies created under the rent laws. The Bench held SARFAESI and rent laws operate in separate fields and the nonobstante clause in the former cannot override the latter: "35. The decision of this Court rendered in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar cannot be understood to have held that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act override the provisions of the Rent Control Act, and that the banks are at liberty to evict the tenants residing in the tenanted premises which have been offered as collateral sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution Bench in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal (1979) 4 SCC 214 [Para 6] and is not good law. 20. In V. Dhanapal Chettiar (supra), question which fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench is whether a notice to determine tenancy under section 106 of the TP Act is necessary for eviction of a tenant under the rent laws. Answering in the negative, the Bench, inter alia, held under the extended definition of the word "tenant" under various State laws, Section 2(g) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997- " 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be payable, and includes any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy...." jural relationship between the landlord and tenant is not snapped on determination of contractual tenancy and continues till order of eviction is passed. 21. In Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and Ors. ( 2000 ) 6 SCC 394, this Court reiterated jural relationship between lessor/lessee created through an unregistered instrument shall be protected under rent laws. 22. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that the impact of the no....