Urmimala Bakshi versus Punjab National Bank

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Reserved on 13.11.2025 Pronounced on 18.11.2025

¶3

Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT

¶5

KOLKATA

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶7

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1264 of 2025 (Arising out of S.A. No. 248 of 2025 in DRT-III Kolkata)

¶8

Smt. Urmimala Bakshi, Flat C-3, 3^rd Floor, Subhas Apartment, B-56, Narkel Bagan Road, Kolkata -700084.

¶9

.…Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra (Stressed Assets Targeted Resolution Action) Center, 9^th Floor, 11, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700002.

¶12

Sri Bivas Guha, A-703, Sanskriti Apartment Sector-43, Gurugram, Hariyana-700002.

¶13

….Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellants Md. Masud Mallik with Mr. Anmol Shah

¶15

Counsel for Respondents None

¶16

JUDGMENT : 18^th November, 2025

¶17

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶18

Instant Appeal is filed against an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by Learned DRT-III Kolkata in S.A. No. 248 of 2025 (Urmimala Bakshi versus Punjab National Bank).

¶19

2. Sale Notice dated 29.08.2025 fixing the sale on 16.09.2025 is challenged on the ground that the Appellant is a monthly tenant who is paying electricity bills and maintenance charges since 2010. He is a tenant who is

¶20

2

¶21

Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶22

paying rentals Rs.4,000/- per month regularly. His tenancy is governed by West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1997. Relief prayed for in the S.A. is as under:

¶23

a) To record the possession of the applicant as monthly tenant of the flat no C-3 on third floor (South East Side) of Premises No. 134 (Now B-56), Narkel Bagan Road (M), Kamadhari, Kolkata 700 034, under the Defendant no. 2 and the applicant's possessory rights cannot be disturbed under the provision and Rules of the SARFAEST Act, 2002.

¶24

b) To stay the operation of the said impugned possession notice dated 07/12/2024 issued by the Defendant no. 1 in respect of the residential flat.

¶25

c) To restrain the respondent bank from taking physical Possession of the said tenanted flats. d) And to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit. 3. Learned DRT recorded a finding that Sale Notice dated 29.08.2025 is not under challenge. No instruments of tenancy is filed. Accordingly hearing on I.A No. 3930 of 2025 was fixed for further hearing on 08.01.2026 which is under challenge.

¶26

4. At the very outset, prima facie no case is made out in favour of the Appellant. Relief sought for in the S.A. itself is not covered under the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. No relief is claimed either challenging the Notice under Section 13(2), 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, sale Notice or the sale, if conducted, but the reliefs as claimed as quoted above are simply in the form of an injunction without making a challenge as required under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. On this ground alone, relief sought for in the I.A. is rightly not considered

¶27

3

¶28

. Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶29

by the Learned DRT. Consequently, I.A. No. 3930 of 2025 is still pending and is not finally disposed of. Accordingly, Learned DRT has yet not recorded its finding on merits of the I.A.

¶30

5. Harshad Govardhan Sondagar -vs- International Assets Reconstruction Co. Limited [(2014) 6 SCC 1] was relied upon by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal -vsCentral Bank of India Another [(2019) 9 SCC 94]. Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal placed reliance in paragraph 36 of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar wherein it was held that:

¶31

“ 21. In Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India (2019) 9 SCC 94, a three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court further considered the law laid down by Vishal N. Kalsaria case (supra). In Para No. 36, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar versus International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2014) 6 SCC 1, was relied upon wherein it was held that-

¶32

"36. We may now consider the contention of the respondents that some of the appellants have not produced any document to prove that they are bona fide lessees of the secured assets. We find that in the case before us, the appellants have relied on the written instruments or rent receipts issued by the landlord to the tenant. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made "only by a registered instrument" and all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Hence, if any of the appellants claim that they are entitled to possession of a secured asset for any term exceeding one year from the date of the lease made in his favour, he has to produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour by the lessor. Where he does not produce proof of execution of a registered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will have to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the possession of the secured asset for more than a year from the

¶33

4

¶34

Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶35

date of the instrument or from the date of delivery of possession in his favour by the landlord."

¶36

6. Further in paragraphs 22 and 23 it was held that:

¶37

" 22. After examining the legal and constitutional position, the Court held that while the SARFAESI Act has a laudable objective of providing a smooth and efficient recovery procedure, it cannot override the objection of the Rent Acts to control the rate of rent and provide protection to tenants against arbitrary and unreasonable evictions. To resolve this conflict, this Court held that:

¶38

22.1 The provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Act. The landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under the Rent Act.

¶39

22.2. While a yearly tenancy requires to be registered, oral tenancy can still be proved by showing that the tenant has been in occupation of the premises before the Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶40

22.3. The non-registration of the tenancy deed cannot be used against the tenant. For leasehold rights being created after the property has been mortgaged to the bank, the consent of the creditor needs to be taken.

¶41

22.4. Even though Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act has a non obstante clause, it will not override the statutory rights of the tenants under the Rent Control Act. The non obstante clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act only applies to laws operating in the same field.

¶42

23. While we agree with the principle laid out in Vishal N. Kalsaria case, that the tenancy rights under the Rent Act need to be respected in appropriate cases, however, we believe that the holding with respect to the restricted application of the non obstante clause under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, to only apply to the laws operating in the same filed is too narrow and such a proposition does not follow from the ruling of this Court in Harshad Govardhan case.

¶43

24. In our view, the objective of the SARFAESI Act, coupled with the TP Act and the Rent Act are required to be reconciled herein in the following manner:

¶44

24.1 If a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, the tenant's possession cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor by taking possession of the property. The lease has to be determined in accordance with Section 111 of the TP Act for determination of leases. As the existence of a prior existing lease inevitably affects the risk undertaken by the bank while providing the loan, it is expected of banks/ creditors to have conducted a standard

¶45

5

¶46

Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶47

due diligence in this regard. Where the Bank has proceeded to accept such a property as mortgage, it will be presumed that it has consented to the risk that comes as a consequence of the existing tenancy. In such a situation, the rights of a rightful tenant cannot be compromised under the SARFAESI Act proceedings.

¶48

24.2 If a tenancy under law comes into existence after the creation of a mortgage, but prior to the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of Section 65-A of the TP Act.

¶49

24.3 In any case, if any of the tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of a secured asset for a term of more than a year. It has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant relies on an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under Section 107 of TP Act.

¶50

23. Thereafter, in Hemraj Ratnakar Salian -vs- HDFC Bank Limited and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 611 it was held in Para 13 that -

¶51

"It was further held that the Rent Act would not come to the aid of a "tenant-in-sufferance" vis-à-vis SARFAESI Act due to the operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. It was held as follows:

¶52

"35. The operation of the Rent Act cannot be extended to a "tenantin-sufferance" vis-à-vis SARFAESI Act, due to the operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. A contrary interpretation would violate the intention of the legislature to provide for Section 13(13), which has a valuable role in making the SARFAESI Act a self-executory instrument for debts recovery. Moreover, such an interpretation would also violate the mandate of Section 35, SARFAESI Act which is couched in broad terms."

¶53

7. No instrument of creation of a tenancy is on record. Rather it is alleged that the tenant is regularly paying the electricity bills and maintenance charges. As has been held in Hemraj Ratnakar Salian versus HDFC Bank Limited and others 2021 SCC OnLIne SC 611, a tenant, is a “tenant-in-sufferance” as he alleges himself to be a tenant on month to month basis but is continuing since 2010, it means that he is a tenant for more than a year. Registered Instrument should have been executed to protect the rights

¶54

6

¶55

. Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶56

but the same is not done. As has been held in Hemraj Ratnakar Salian versus HDFC Bank Limited (supra), operation of the Rent Act cannot be extended to a “tenantin-sufferance vis -a-vis SARFAESI Act, due to the operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the Appellant is not entitled for any relief. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed in limini at admission stage. However, it would be appropriate to observe that the Learned DRT has rightly observed that despite service, none appeared for the Bank in the proceedings. Such practice could not be appreciated. The General Manager of Punjab National Bank is hereby directed to take appropriate action in the matter under intimation to DRAT Kolkata within two weeks. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the General Manger Punjab National Bank, or the appropriate authorities whatsoever it may be, for information and necessary action.

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Appeal is dismissed at admission stage with the observations made in the body of the judgment. Impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by Learned DRT-III Kolkata is confirmed.

¶59

No Order as to costs.

¶60

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶61

7

¶62

Misc. Appeal Dy. No.1264 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶63

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶64

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18^th day of November, 2025.

¶65

Chairperson

¶66

Dated 18^th November, 2025 /tp

Urmimala Bakshi v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmimala Bakshi v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhandala Mani Distributor and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Sri Rahul Mashahary versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Ms Chitiz Metals And Minerals Trading P Ltd. And Ors.

K Rohit Reddy versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank Of India versus Smt Chennuri Vimala and Ors.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Venu Akula