In a securitisation application regarding seizure of property, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea to restrain the bank from taking possession. The court held the applicant did not prove valid grounds to set aside the notice, noting discrepancies in lease details and mentioning Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II
AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 26thDAY OFJULY 2023
PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWARKOTHE,B.com,L.LB. (Hons.),M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO'125 OF 2022
M/s. Trance India Business Enterprises Rep. by its Prop: Prameet Singh Hora S/o Sri H.S. Hora, aged about45 years Occ: Business, R/o HouseNo.1-8-54/1 Jasleen Price Apts, P.G. Road Secunderabad, Telangana.
.....'Applicant'
Versus
.,....Respondents.
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr' G.K, Deshpande. Respondents : Ex\arte.
-:.93!l-Bi-
2of4
SA No.12512022 .
physical possession of application schedule property pursuant to the Possession Notice 17.05.2022.
- The case of the Applicant, in brief, is that, applicant is the tenant in the schedule property by virtue of registered lease deed bearing No.4488/2010 dated 08.09.2010 and subsequent unregistered lease deed dated 24.02.207g executed by the erstwhile owner prior to purchase by the 2,d respondent vide sale deed dated 22.01.2020. Applicant is in the possession of the property since then and has been paying the rent to the 2id respondent. However, the respondent bank affixed the impugned possession notice dated 77.05.2022 on the schedule property and directed the applicant to vacate the property. The applicant has not been served with any notice prlor to affixture of impugned possession on the property. Therefore, the action of respondent bank to dispossess the applicant without following due process of law is illegal and that the 1.t respondent bank has no legal right to encroach over the tenancy rights of the applicant. The applicant relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in yrbrra, N. Katsaria v. Bank of India and Others decided on 20.01.2016 with emphasis on paragraphs 25, 26 and 30. Accordingly, the Applicant prayed for restralning the Bank from dispossesstng the Applicant from the application schedule property pursuant to the possession Notice 17.05.2022, which has been affixed on the schedule property.
3 of4
SA No.125/2022
0Y*
4of4
SA No.125/2022.
unregistered one directly for ten years. Further, the SA schedule itself indicates difference in the door number between lease deed dated 24.02.2018 and sale deed, basing on which possession notice dated L7.05.2022 has been issued by the l't respondent and no reason has been offered for such difference in door number. Under such circumstances, the applicant cannot claim tenancy by pressing into service an unregistered lease document with different door number.
Point No.(iil;-
Ow* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can set aside the possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act based on unregistered lease documents.
Whether the tenancy rights of the petitioner survive the sale of the property by the bank to the second respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Virjibhai N. Kalsaria v. Bank of IndiaReferred¶6
Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Others, 20.01.2016
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Trance India Business Enterprises
ICICI Bank Limited
M/s. Razorrex Fence Pvt. Ltd.
Rameshwar Koth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
