Dismissed

Ms Shabbir and Sons v. Uco Bank

DRT6 Oct 2025SA/320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Section 17 application challenging possession proceedings. The Tribunal held the occupant entered into an unregistered lease after the property mortgage was created, negating statutory tenant status against the banking securitisationee.

What did the court decide?

Claim dismissed; Applicant is not entitled to challenge the taking of physical possession of the property.

Ms Shabbir and Sons versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIEUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 6rH DAy OF OCTOBE& 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

SA.No.320 ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Shabbir and Sons, Represented by its partner Mohd Abdul Razzak, S/o Late Mohd Abudul Kaeemullah Aged 32 years, occ: business, R/o B-4-3 15/6/ L / L7Z, mate, Rehmat tower, Erragadda, Hyderabad - 500 019.

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UCO Bank,

¶9

Kukatpally branch, At Phase, 4th road, KpHB Colony, Kukatpally,

¶10

Hyderabad- 500 085.

¶11

Represented by its Author-rsed officer

¶12

Mohammed Asif, S/o Mohammed Hafeez, aged 36 years, occ: business, Male R/o 5-5-191/3,Patel nagar, Gandhi Bhavan, Darusalam Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant

¶15

ffie-\ 0 6 0[I ,n25^* &,***9

Respondent No.1

Respondent no.2

Smt P.S.S. Sujatha

Claim dismissed for not taking notice

¶20

(SA.No.320/2023)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1' The Applicant filed securitisation Apprication under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2oo2 chailenging the steps initiated by the Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner as per orders of Hon,ble CMM, Hyderabad in Crl.Mp.1418/2023 under SARFAESI Act.

¶23

The averments made in the application in brief are as follows:

¶24

The Respondent no.2 is the absorute owner of the schedure property. originally the applicant's father Late M.A. Kaleemullah shabbir was a tenant who had taken the schedule premises on lease and they have been paying rents regularly. The respondent No.1 bank along with Advocate commissioner came to the schedure property for taking physical possession of property. On enquiry, the Applicant came to know that the respondent no.2 availed the loan from first respondent bank, and thereafter committed default in repaying the loan amount and so they intend to take physical possession of schedule property through Advocate commissioner. Hence the SA.

¶25

The First Respondent ly statement contending that one M/s. Innovative I the respondent bank and respondent no. mortgage in respect of schedule J.r.^{n'fi"PEIof,n"} committed default in repaying the loa initiated proceedings under

¶26

(sA.No.320/2023)

¶27

SARFAESI Act and issued demand notice and possession notice. Thereafter the respondent no.1 fired crl.Mp.No.sL4tB/202023 and 1419/2023 on the file of CMM, Hyderabad for taking physical possession of the schedule property.

¶28

On earlier occasion, the Applicant herein and another tenant filed SA's No.523 and 522/2OtB respectively before the Hon,ble DRT_ II, Hyderabad but the same are dismissed. The applicant is an unauthorised occupant of sA schedule property. The applicant filed sA by colluding with respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 has not violated any procedures mentioned in the SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. Hence the SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Heard the arguments.

¶30

Now the point for consideration is

¶31

i) Whether the Applicant has estabtished any valid grounds for challenging the steps initiated by the First Respondent for taking physical possession of the schedule property through Advocate commissioner as per the orders of CMM, Hyderabad ?

¶32

ii) To

¶33

Point no.i)

¶34

6, There is no the Respondent no.2 availed loa n from and thereafter he committed default in re r occasion, the applicant herein

¶35

(sA. No.320/2023)

¶36

and another fired sA.No.523 and 522/2018 0n the fire of Hon,bre DRTII, Hyderabad challenging the steps initiated by the respondent no.1 in taking physical possession and the said sA,s were dismissed for default.

¶37

The contention of the applicant is that, as the applicant is a statutory tenant of the schedure property it cannot be dispossessed from the schedule property.

¶38

The contentions of the 1st respondent bank is that the appricant is an unauthorised occupant of the sA schedure property and so it is not a statutory tenant of the schedule property which is owned by respondent no.2.

¶39

According to the applicant, originally Late M.A. Kaleemullah shabbir took the schedule property on lease under rental agreement dated 29.12.20t7. The applicant has filed a copy of the rental agreement dated 29.12.2017 0btained by Late Kaleemullah shabbir in respect of schedure property. The said rease agreement is an unregistered one and it was executed on insufficient stamp papers. As per the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.1 in Crl.MP.1418/2023 on the file of Hon,ble CMM, Hyderabad, it is clear that the mortgage in respect.of^.schedule property was created by respondent no.2 on 25.02.20L4. so the appricant alregedly entered '^.i''..a- into thsrscheoure 'nrobEi$hrbsequent to the mortgage created by 0ed€ nt no.2 in respect €lcft,schedule property. So the applicant :o:2,.in -; !i fi ll^i-': '^,iil ._o,n unregistered lease, &reement obtained from respondent

¶40

(sA.No.320/2023)

¶41

no.2, subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of respondent no.1, in respect of schedule property, cannot contend that it is a statutory tenant and so it cannot be evicted by secured creditor by invoking provisions of SARFAESI Act. So considering all the circumstances, I hord that the appricant is not entitred to chailenge the proceedings initiated by the respondent no.1 bank for taking physicar possession of the property through Advocate commissioner. so I see no ground warranting interference of this Tribunal with the steps initiated by the respondent no.1 bank against the schedule property.

¶42

so there are no merits in the sA. so this point is answered accordingly.

¶43

Point no.ii)

¶44

In the result, SA.3Z0/2023 is dismissed.

¶45

B' The Interlocutory Apprications, pending if any, shal stand disposed of. No order as to costs,

¶46

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the PA, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th Oct, 2025)

¶48

¶49

¶50

sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
CCIPY
Nl,'.I, HYDERABAD.
5

Ms Shabbir and Sons v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shabbir and Sons v. Uco Bank

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gujarlapudi Sateesh

Canara Bank versus M/S Revathi Textiles

Mr E Sudhakar versus Repco Bank

Mr Ajay Kumar Jogu versus Smfc India Home Finance Ltd.

Mr Sikander Ali versus Icici Bank Limited

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao versus State Bank of India