The applicant, a licensee, challenged possession taken by a financial institution under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that a licensee cannot retain property against a secured creditor, dismissing the application as it is based on a license agreement subordinate to the bank's mortgage.
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
PRESIDING OFFICER: HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
Date of Institution: 08.12.2026 Date of Decision: 29.01.2026
Sangita Tejpal Pachori Flat No.C001, Ground Floor, Grit Residency, Mankhurd Ghatkopar Link Road, Govandi West, Mumbai 400043
… Applicant
Versus
Page 1 of 6
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
| APPEARANCES For the Applicant |
: Mr Vivek Phadke and Mr Tejas Girap - Advocates |
|---|---|
| For Respondent No.1 | : Ms Kalyani Wagle i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co. – Advocate |
| For Respondent Nos.2 and | None |
| 3 |
Final Order
The factual matrix of the case:
Page 2 of 6
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
flat”) with registered agreement and heavy deposit of Rs.19,00,000/- as a security deposit for an initial period of 22 months.
(3) That the Respondent No.1 is a Non-Banking Financial Institution which has granted loan to Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have given the said flat to the Applicant on leave and license basis with heavy deposit under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. This Leave and License basis for a period of 22 months commencing from 01.07.2021 till 30.04.2023. The said agreement was thereafter orally extended from time to time.
Page 3 of 6
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
as “the Demand Notice”). The Applicant has not received the Demand Notice as well as not having a copy of Possession Notice. However, despite proper service of the Demand Notice, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to comply with the Demand Notice. Hence, the Respondent No.1 took symbolic possession of the said flat on 05.11.2022 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
(6) The Respondent No.1 have filed an Application No.867/SA/2024 before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai seeking assistance to take physical possession of the said flat. Accordingly, by an Order dated 09.09.2025, the Ld. CMM has allowed the Application, appointing the Advocate Court Commissioner to take physical possession of the said flat. On 18.11.2025, the Advocate Court Commissioner had issued the notice scheduling the physical possession of the said flat on 11.12.2025 at 11.45 A.M. and the Respondent No.1 has taken physical possession of the said flat on 11.12.2025.
(7) The Applicant was not having knowledge of any facility sanctioned by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Applicant paid the amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 towards security deposit and accordingly, the possession of the said flat was handed over to the Applicant. In the light of
Page 4 of 6
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
registered leave and license agreement dated 06.07.2021 executed between the Applicant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 which was not objected by the Respondent No.1 at any time which indicates the implied consent of the Respondent No.1.
(8) The Applicant thereafter came to know all the facts which were not disclosed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 about the availing of the private loans and they were unable to repay the loan amount.
(9) That Respondent No.1 states that this S.A. No.18 of 2026 is utterly false, frivolous, misconceived and not tenable in law. This S.A. is filed on the basis of the alleged licence agreement dated 05.07.2021 which has already been expired on 30.04.2023. The fact that license agreement was orally renewed it cannot be relied upon in the absence of written consent regarding extension of period.
(10) Ld. Advocate for the Respondent also submitted that the possession of the Said flat has already been taken on 11.12.2025 as per the amended pleading of the Applicant. The said flat was mortgaged with the Respondent Bank by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 much prior to the alleged licence agreement dated 05.07.2021 i.e., on 20.01.2018. The memorandum of deposit Exh-2
Page 5 of 6
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2026
corroborates the argument of Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.1. It is well settled principle of law that the licensee cannot claim the retention of the property on the basis of mere lease and licence agreement. This Tribunal also gets guidance on this point from the judgment in case of Yukta Mookhy Vs. Bank of India [2006 (4) Mah L J 61] .
Sd/-
(Harish Kumar Kaushik) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai
Radhika
Page 6 of 6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a bonafide licensee can challenge recovery measures taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act against mortgagees.
Whether an oral renewal of an expiring leave and license agreement creates a tenable defense against retention of possession.
Whether a licensee can retain property against a mortgagee where the finance company's possession was legally secured prior to the alleged license agreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yukta Mookhy Vs. Bank of IndiaReferred¶38
Yukta Mookhy Vs. Bank of India [2006 (4) Mah L J 61]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sangita Tejpal Pachori
Sammaan Capital Limited (Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited)
Dhiraj Keshvrao Aher
Shilpa Aher
HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
