Dismissed

Ms G R Preetheka v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT19 May 2023SA/603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Rajesh, DRT-IIs Chennai dismissed the SARFAESI application filed by a tenant seeking to set aside seizure of business premises. The court held the applicant was not entitled to protection as the tenancy had determined.

What did the court decide?

SA 603/2022 stands dismissed; no order as to cost passed; all pending IAs closed.

Ms G R Preetheka versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 19^th day of May, 2023

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.603/2022

¶6

Ms.G.R.Preetheka, D/o.Radhakrishnan, No.V8(AB 549), H Block, 16^th Main Road, 16^th Street, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.

¶7

… Applicant.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer, City Union Bank, No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam – 612 001.

¶10

Mrs.Rathika Kumaran, No.1, Gurusamy Nagar Main Road, Sembakkam, Selaiyur, Chengalpattu District. Tamil Nadu – 600 073. … Respondents. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s.A.Karthikeyan. 2^nd Respondent : ….

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This application is filed by the applicant under section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called SARFAESI Act or the

¶13

„Act‟, as the case be), to set aside the measures taken by the 1^st Respondent in pursuance of order dt.30.03.2022 passed by the CJM, Chengalpat in C.M.P. No.5005/2022.

¶14

¶15

The applicant claims to be a lessee/tenant from 2016 in the schedule property which belong to 2^nd respondent. It is alleged by the applicant that the 1^st respondent had procured the orders from the Ld. Magistrate by suppressing the fact about the existence of tenancy. According to the applicant, the applicant is in possession of the property by virtue of lease agreement registered as Doc.No.904/2022 and no due is made by the applicant so far as far as payment of rentals. It is contended by the applicant that the applicant is in uninterrupted possession of the property and running a business in the name and style of “Kiteblue Cafe” wherein she claimed to have invested a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- for infrastructure as well as remodeling the building. Hence, according to the applicant the 1^st respondent in the guise of proceeding as per the provisions of the Act, is trying to evict the applicant, who is otherwise entitled to be in possession of the schedule property.

¶16

In the grounds to the SA, the applicant is reiterating the contention that the applicant is in possession since 03.02.2016 (i.e.) prior to the creation of mortgage. Hence, on the basis of the contention that the tenant cannot be evicted by the secured creditor invoking the provisions of the Act, the applicant assails the measures especially section 14 orders procured by 1^st respondent. Along with SA, the applicant had produced the following documents:

¶17

(a) Copy of Lease Agreements dt.03.02.2016.

¶18

(b) Registration of Lease dt.22.12.2021.

¶19

¶20

¶21

(d) Letter by 1^st Respondent dt.27.10.2022.

¶22

(e) Impugned order passed in C.M.P.No.5005/2022 dt.30.06.2022.

¶23

(f) Photographs.

¶24

This matter came up for admission on 18.11.2022 and notice was issued to the respondent taking note of the fact that the applicant is running a business in the schedule property and the notice was issued to 1^st respondent only for the limited purpose to ascertain as to how much time can be given to the applicant to vacate the premises.

¶25

The 1^st respondent entered appearance on 15.12.2022 and on that date the applicant was directed to file an affidavit stating as to when the vacant possession can be handed over to the respondent. Thereafter on 02.01.2023, the counsel for 1^st respondent was directed to get instruction as to how much time can be granted to the applicant to vacate the premises. Thereafter the matter stood posted to 06.02.2023, 14.02.2023, 23.02.2023 and 26.04.2023. In pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the applicant had filed an affidavit stating that one year time may be given to vacate the premises and undertook to hand over the schedule property to the 1^st respondent. This affidavit was filed on 06.02.2023 which was not acceptable to the respondent. Hence, the matter was heard on merits.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsels for both sides and considered the rival

¶27

contentions as taken in the SA in the light of documents available on

¶28

¶29

record and the averments made therein by either side. The only issue that arises for consideration in this matter is as to whether the applicant is entitled to be protected as contending and is liable to get protection from the measures taken by the 1^st respondent.

¶30

The applicant claims to be a tenant on the basis of unregistered lease agreement dt.03.02.2016. The applicant had also produced a photograph which according to her proves the kitchen utensils and coffee shop is being conducted in the premises. The applicant had also produced a registered lease deed dt.22.12.2021 and the registration certificate proving the same. From the orders of Ld. Magistrate it is seen that the facilities were disbursed in the year 2017. By virtue of the so claimed unregistered lease agreement the applicant claimed to be put in possession in the year 2016 for a period of 11 months. It is settled law that the operation of Rent Control Act cannot be extended to the „tenant in sufference‟ which is also stated that due to operation of section 13(2) read with 13 of the Act. It is also held by Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶31

Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India and

¶32

Another in 2019 (9) SCC 94 that a person occupying the premises when the tenancy has been determined can only be treated as a „tenant in sufferance.‟

¶33

¶34

In view of the above dictum the only finding that can be entered into is that the applicant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for in the application and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Taking into consideration the discussions as made in the above paragraphs and the conclusion arrived therein can only lead this Tribunal to the irresistible finding that the SA is devoid of any merits and is liable to be rejected.

¶36

In the result, SA 603/2022 stands dismissed. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost is passed and all pending IAs stands closed. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1983.

¶37

( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 19^th day of May, 2023 )

¶38

Sd./(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

Ms G R Preetheka v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms G R Preetheka v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasa Traders versus South Indian Bank

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s.Bindu Appalam Depot

Arulvel versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Mr. K. Dhamotharan

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s Sri Ayyappa Enterprises

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s Gee Ess International