Allowed

Vallavan Chettinad Restaurant v. State Bank of India

DRT15 Sept 2022SA/378/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, a tenant in a bank premises, challenged the civil小结 order allowing SBIs possession. The Tribunal dismissed the challenge but granted a one-month extension for possession delivery, balancing the bank’s statutory rights with the tenants’ operational interests.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the challenge to the possession order but directed the bank to grant one month for vacating the premises.

Vallavan Chettinad Restaurant versus State Bank of India — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 15^th Day of September, 2022

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

S.A. No.378 of 2022

¶6

M/s.Vallavan Chettinad Restaurant, Rep. by its Proprietor Ms.P.Kavitha, New Door No.3, Old No.132, MMDA Colony Main Road, Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600106.

. . . Applicant

Versus

The Authorised Officer,

¶11

State Bank of India,

¶12

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,

¶13

No.32, 2^nd Floor, Red Cross Road,

¶14

Egmore, Chennai – 600008.

¶15

The Specialist Clinic & Hospital, Rep. by its Partner Dr.R.Manivannan,

¶16

No.1/9, Rajamannar Salai, Vijayaraghavapuram, K.K.Nagar (West), Chennai.

¶17

Mrs.Laxmipriya Manivannan, No.1/9, Rajamannar Salai, Vijayaraghavapuram, K.K.Nagar (West), Chennai.

¶18

Dr.R.Manivannan,

¶19

No.4/14, Soundarapandiayan Salai, Vijayaraghavapuram, K.K.Nagar (West), Chennai.

¶20

. . . Defendants

¶21

¶22

Applicant by Mr.Rajasekhar, Adv.

¶23

R1 Bank by Mr. Chandrasekhar, Adv - Caveator

¶24

R2 to R4-served.

¶25

This is the application challenging the orders passed by the Ld. CMM in CMP No. 5315/2020 dated 18.02.2020 allowing the application filed by the secured financial institution u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶26

The applicant is claiming to be the tenant running a hotel in the premises to which the possession is ordered. Applicant is in the ground and first floor of the premises.

¶27

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the first defendant bank submits that the auction is already held, sale certificate issued and registered. A duty is cast upon the bank to deliver the possession to the purchaser.

¶28

It is seen from the facts pleaded that the applicant is inducted as a tenant under a rental agreement dated 01.04.2018. This is for a period of 11 months. Later the same is renewed for a period of 3 years from 01.04.2020. Such renewal is not registered.

¶29

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that he may be allowed to remain in possession till the lease period is over.

¶30

The imminent threat applicant facing is lawful dispossession consequent to the orders of the Ld. CMM.

¶31

¶32

In this fact situation, the law laid down by the Hon’ SC in Hemraj Ratnakar Salian Vs. HDFC Bank reported in (2021) SCC online 0611 squarely applies. The paragraphs 12-13 make it clear that the operation of the rent act cannot be extended to a tenant in sufferance. In view of the above this Tribunal sees no merit in the SA and consequently the following order:

¶33

SA stands dismissed. However, considering the relocation and the interests of the workmen and their human rights working with the applicant restaurant, the defendant No.1 bank is directed to extend one month time and the applicant is directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession within one month from today failing which the warrants would be executed immediately. Copy of this order may be sent to the Ld. CMM.

¶34

Sd/(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶35

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 15^th day of September, 2022)

¶36

Vallavan Chettinad Restaurant v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallavan Chettinad Restaurant v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendran versus Canara Bank

Mrs Jagadhambal rep by Poa Holder Mr Aroon Ramadoss versus City Union Bank Limited

K R Mohamed Kasim versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

M Vellaiappan versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Natarajan versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Central Bank of India versus M/s Aban Offshore Ltd.