Dismissed

Sajid Patel Rasool Patel v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT19 Jul 2022SA/292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed Applicant Sajid Patel Rasool Patel's Securitisation Application No.292/2022 against Kotak Mahindra Bank. The Court held that the unregistered and unstamped document alleged to be a 21-year lease agreement was invalid evidence to establish tenancy, thus denying the claim for interim protection and possession.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.292/2022 dismissed; pending Interim Applications disposed of accordingly.

Sajid Patel Rasool Patel versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶2

1 S	9.07.2 r. No.	022 59 SA No.292/2022
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
	05	SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.292/2022 Sajid Patel Rasool Patel ..Applicant/s Versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ..Respondent/s Mr. Sharef – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.A. Panchal – Advocate for the respondent-bank. Due to Covid 19 situation the matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. Service Affidavit (Exhibit-05) filed by the applicant which is taken on record. 2. In this matter the learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that they are in possession of the property subsequent to the Rent Agreement dated 18^thMay, 2005 which was executed for the period of 21 years for a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- per month with an increment of 10%. 3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the tenancy will be terminated in the year 2026. The property is mortgaged with the respondent-bank. The documents shown by the applicant is not a document admissible as it is not a registered document of tenancy. He is not covered in a definition of tenant and as per the law he has to prove his tenancy. The document being unregistered cannot prove his tenancy and possession.
		4. In these circumstances, the interim protection cannot be granted and the onlylimitedground taken bythe SA applicant

¶3

[SBJ]

¶4

(SA No.292/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD

¶6

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶7

ORDER SHEET

¶8

is that he is a tenant on 21 years lease which is prima-facie
does not appears to be correct as any lease agreement more
than 11 month is to be registered and duly registered and
document produced is neither stamped nor registered.
5. In these circumstances, the Securitisation Application stands
dismissed.
6. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video
conference:
ORDER
A. Securitisation Application No.292/2022 stands dismissed.
B. All pending IAs in the proceeding, if any are disposed of
accordingly.
C. Consign the file to the Record Room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶9

[SBJ]

¶10

(SA No.292/2022) Page 2 of 2

Sajid Patel Rasool Patel v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Patel Rasool Patel v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Raheman Ataur Raheman Qureshi Khatik versus Magma Housing Finance

State Bank of India versus Shri Ganesh Agencies

Dnyneshwar Kachru Apshinde versus Shivaji Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Kalyan

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Babasaheb Kacharu Idhate

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Pranjal Industries through its Proprietor Kanchan Kumar Namdev Tayde