Dismissed

Mrs Alfiya Madarwala Abdeali v. State Bank of India

DRT12 Sept 2023SA/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-1 Mumbai dismissed an application by a tenant challenging a bank's possession order, ruling that tenancy rights cannot be asserted against non-signatory owners and noting the applicant's laches in ignoring a prior possession notice.

What did the court decide?

The special application challenging the bank's possession was dismissed as lacking merit due to lack of standing against non-signatory owners and laches.

Mrs Alfiya Madarwala Abdeali versus State Bank of India — Landlord and Tenant | DRT (2023)

¶1

12/09/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in SA 181 of 2023* *Mrs Alfiya Madarwala Abdeali Vs State Bank* *of India*	Next date
		Advocate Shyam K. Singh appeared for the Applicant.
		Advocate Sachin Koli appeared for the Respondent. 1. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that Applicant is a bonafide tenant on the property in question on the basis of registered leave and licence agreement dated 27/02/2021 entered between the borrower of the bank and the Applicant herein. He also submits that the said leave and licence agreement shall remain continue till 29/02/2024. Therefore, the
		Applicant may be allowed to continue on the property in question. He also submits that Applicant has paid an amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs at the time of entering into the said leave and licence agreement and further the Applicant is paying rent of Rs. 4000/- and the maintenance charges

¶2

every month. Thus, he submits that the right of the bonafide tenant may be protected and the Respondent may be restrained from taking possession of the property in question. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank strongly objected to the present application and contends that the alleged leave and licence agreement dated 27/02/2021 was entered by only one of the borrower and the Applicant herein, whereas the mortgage property belongs to three persons i.e. Respondent no.2, 3 & 4 therefore, the Applicant cannot claim his right on the basis of said leave and licence agreement. He also submits that the symbolic possession notice was pasted on the property in question in November 2021 but the Applicant did not come forward at that point of time and today now the date fixed for possession of the property in question then the Applicant filed the present SA. Thus, he submits that Applicant is not entitled for any relief therefore, the present SA alongwith IA may be declined.

¶3

Considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the record. 5. Admittedly, alleged leave and licence agreement is entered between the Applicant as well as Respondent no.2 only whereas the Respondent no. 3 & 4 are also owners of the property in question therefore as rightly said by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank that on the basis of said leave and licence agreement dated 27/02/2021, the Applicant cannot claim any right of tenancy. It is also important to note here that symbolic possession notice dated 23/11/2021 was already pasted on the property in question, which the Applicant has already mentioned in para 11 of the SA, but the Applicant did not come forward at that point of time. 6. Thus, in view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present SA, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶4

File be closed and consigned to the record room. P.O. DRT-I

¶5

Sgj/-5

Mrs Alfiya Madarwala Abdeali v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Alfiya Madarwala Abdeali 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Bharat

Hdfc Bank versus Inside Out

State Bank of India versus M/s. Imperial Diamond Pvt. Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus Mamta

Bhalchandra Laxman Mahale versus Punjab National Bank

Idbi Bank versus Sandeep