Dismissed

Shine Life Hospitality Services v. Manjula Perumal Naidu

DRT24 Apr 2025SA/218/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Securitization Application challenging a sale notice. The court ruled that the application was filed after the permissible 45-day period following the cause of action, rendering it liable for dismissal regardless of the tenancy dispute. Additionally, the lease was found subsequent to the mortgage.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 09/05/2024 and the Securitization Application were dismissed.

Shine Life Hospitality Services versus Manjula Perumal Naidu — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 24th day of April 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

S.A. No. 218 of 2024

¶5

M/s. Shine Life Hospitality Services, A Proprietorship Concern of Shri. Arun Kumar M.S. Office at No.2528, 9^th ‘A’ Cross, 13^th Main Road, ‘E’ Block, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru 560 092.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, (earlier Allahabad Bank), D.V.G.Road Branch, Ratnamurthy Complex, No.121, DVG Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru 560 004.

¶9

1. Smt.P.Manjula @ Manjula Perumal Naidu, Aged about 57 years, W/o. Shri S Dhananjaya Naidu,

¶10

1. Shri. S. Dhananjaya Naidu, Aged about 59 years, S/o. Shri S. Venkatarama Naidu,

¶11

Respondents 2 & 3 are residing at: No.100/101, “Manasa Residency”, 1^st Floor, 3^rd Main Road, BOB Colony, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru 560 078.

¶12

2 SA 218/2024

¶13

Mr. Mohammed Riyaz Ahmed, Major, S/o. Late Baba Saheb, Residing at No.22, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru 560 005. … Respondents

¶14

Ld. Counsels on record/appeared:

¶15

For Applicant : Shri K.V. Satish For Respondent No.1 : Shri K.R. Parashuram For Respondent No.4 : Shri Puttaraju

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Sale notice dated 09/05/2024 issued by 1^st Respondent

¶18

under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) is under challenge in this Securitization Application ( in short, “SA”) filed u/s 17 of this Act.

¶19

The case of the Applicant, in brief:-

¶20

(a) The applicant, a proprietary concern, is the bonafide and lawfully registered lease holder of the schedule property vide registered Deed of Lease registered as document no. JAY-103951-2019-2020 dated 02/09/2019. It is contended that the

¶21

3 SA 218/2024

¶22

Applicant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of all that piece and parcel of property as per Annexure A2.

¶23

(b) It is stated that, after the creation of lease by virtue of the registered lease deed, the mortgage in favour of erstwhile Allahabad bank was created by the 2^nd respondent.

¶24

(c) In respect of the Demand as well as the Possession notice, the Applicant contends that the same were not published and affixed as required by the statute. It was also alleged that the Possession notice not published as required.

¶25

(d) In the grounds to the SA, the Applicant, apart from reiterating the contentions as made in the statement of facts contends that the measures taken against the schedule property is illegal. Another ground taken in regard to the alleged non-registration of the Secured Asset with the Central Registry.

¶26

(e) Along with the SA, the Applicant had provided the following documents:

¶27

1. Sale notice dated 09/05/2014.

¶28

1. Copy of Registered lease Deed.

¶29

4 SA 218/2024

¶30

The 1^st respondent filed their objections inter alia contending that the respondent had followed the procedure as required by the Act and the rules. It is also contended that the so claimed tenancy is in contravention of section 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It is stated that the property had been auctioned to the 4^th respondent herein for Rs.3,23,70,000/- . It is also stated that the 1^st respondent was irregular in making payments, and hence the measures are initiated and continued, which according to the 1^st respondent is strictly in accordance with the statute.

¶31

Along with the objections, the 1^st respondent had produced the following documents:

¶32

1. RBI circular as to amalgamation of Allahabad Bank

¶33

1. Sanction letter

¶34

1. Mortgage deed

¶35

1. Loan sanction letter

¶36

1. Extension of mortgage

¶37

1. CERSAI report

¶38

1. Demand notice

¶39

1. Postal receipt and returned covers

¶40

1. Paper publications of the demand notice

¶41

5 SA 218/2024

¶42

1. Possession Notice along with postal receipts and RPAD returned

¶43

covers

¶44

1. Paper publications of the possession notice

¶45

1. Photograph evidence of affixture

¶46

1. Valuation report

¶47

1. Sale notice

¶48

1. Postal receipt and RPAD returned cover

¶49

1. Paper publications of Sale Notice

¶50

1. Photograph evidence of affixture of sale notice 18) Section 14 order passed by ACMM Bangalore

¶51

1. Bid history

¶52

1. Sale certificate

¶53

1. Statement of accounts

¶54

The 4^th respondent had filed their objections reiterating the facts as

¶55

stated by the 1^st respondent and also contending that the 4^th

¶56

respondent had invested hard earned money and also produced the Sale Certificate copy.

¶57

Heard the Learned counsels for all the parties. The following issues

¶58

arise for consideration in the matter:

¶59

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to challenge the measures?

¶60

1. Whether the SA filed with a delay condonation petition to be dismissed on that ground?

¶61

6 SA 218/2024

¶62

1. What orders are to be passed?

¶63

All these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶64

The case of the applicant that they are in occupation of the schedule premises by virtue of the registered lease deed dated 01/08/2019 whereas, it came out from the objection filed by the 1^st respondent that Equitable Mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created as early as on 29/06/2016. Since the lease is created subsequent to the creation of Security Interest, the Applicant cannot try to scuttle the measures as the Applicant failed to prove the lease which is in conformity with section 65A of the Transfer of

¶65

Property Act.

¶66

Even assuming that the Applicant has a valid tenancy right, this Tribunal is at a loss to find out how can a tenant who is entitled to get his possession/occupation alone protected can challenge the intended sale, which had nothing to do with the occupancy of the tenant, if any.

¶67

7 SA 218/2024

¶68