Dismissed

Shokat Ali v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT17 Aug 2023SA/280/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of a securitization application filed by a tenant challenging possession notice and eviction actions under SARFAESI Act, holding the application infructuous as the borrower had paid dues and the tenancy right is outside its jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application disposed of as infructuous; interim applications disposed of as infructuous.

Shokat Ali versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 280/2022

¶5

Shokat Ali s/o Late Sh. Noor Mohammad, resident of LoharonKi Masjid

¶6

Theanthera Bazar, Bikaner.

¶7

.........Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

A U Small Finance Bank Ltd., S.R. Complex, Near Railway Bridge, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.

¶10

Tarik s/o Late Sh. Mohammad Ali, resident of In front of Loharon Ki Masjid, Bikaner.

¶11

........Respondents

¶12

Present

¶13

Sh. Narendra Singh Yadav, Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Sh. Ramnaresh Vijay, Counsel for the Respondent Bank

¶15

Sh. Puneet, Counsel for the Respondent no. 2

¶16

(Final Order) (17.08.2023)

¶17

This Securitization Application was filed by the SA applicant on 10.05.2022 in the capacity of third party, who claims himself as tenant on the basis of Oral Tenancy which took place between father of the SA applicant and respondent no. 2 Mr. Tarik.

¶18

SA applicant claims that his father Late Mr. Noor Mohammed, got shop at Loharon Ki Masjid, Thanthera Mohalla, Bikaner from Mr. Mohan Lal Sethia, 45 years ago on the basis of oral tenancy and rent was fixed Rs. 80/- per month.

¶19

¶20

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶21

¶22

Later on, property i.e. Shop was sold out to Late Sh. Mohammed Ali in 2005 but no information was given to applicant.

¶23

In support of tenancy copy of eviction suit are filed at Annexure A-01 to the SA.

¶24

It is alleged that respondent no. 2 is connivance of some official of respondent IF, with ulterior motive got sanctioned credit facility, committed default willfully, issued Possession Notice on 23.04.2021, possession of the said property, including shop was taken by Authorized officer of the respondent FI, in the utter violation of provisions as contained under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

¶25

Based on these grounds, Ld. counsel for the SA applicant prayed to quash the set aside all the actions taken by the respondent FI and also prayed to pass an order for restoration of possession also.

¶26

As per reply filed by the respondent bank and as argued by Ld. counsel for the respondent bank, SA applicant being tenant that too only on the basis of oral tenancy do not have any locus to challenge the actions taken by them.

¶27

Ld. counsel for the bank referred letter dated 13.06.2022, (Annexure R/5) and argued that as the borrower deposited outstanding amount, account of borrower was closed and so possession was restored in his favor as it was required as per law. Ld. counsel for the bank also argued that as on date no action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002 are pending and so SA is required to be disposed of as infractuous.

¶28

Ld. counsel for the SA applicant referred provisions as contained in Section 65(A) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also referred judgments as referred in written arguments filed in support of oral evidence.

¶29

10.Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶30

11.It’s a fact that the SA applicant is neither borrower nor guarantor to the credit facilities so, sanctioned by respondent bank in favor of

¶31

¶32

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶33

¶34

respondent no. 2, who satisfied the demand as raised by respondent bank and so got restored possession in his favor and so, I do not find any reason to hold that the respondent bank committed breach of any rule/ provisions as contained in SARFAESI Act of 2002.

¶35

12.Right to tenancy is a subject matter which is out of jurisdiction of this Tribunal and as litigations are pending before the appropriate forum, so, SA applicant is required to wait for decision of those litigations and so in my considered opinion, it would be better to dispose of this SA as infractuous by giving an opportunity to file SA afresh, if the applicant gets success in litigations of tenancy filed by him, which are pending.

¶36

13.With these observations, this Securitization Application stands disposed of as infractuous. Interim applications, if any, are pending also disposed of as infractuous.

¶37

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶38

File be placed before the Registrar for compliance after compliance file be consigned to record, as per rules.

¶39

(VIVEK SAXENA) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶40

Shokat Ali v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shokat Ali v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Kanwar versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Ms Guru Kripa versus State Bank of India

Ashok Kumar Shah versus Mentor Home Loan India Private Limited

Tejmal Sancheti versus Indusind Bank Limited

Ms Umed Fashion versus State Bank of India

Rajbeer Singh versus Paisalo Digital Limited