A Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a bank’s possession notice. The court held an unregistered lease for ten years is invalid under Sec 107 of Transfer of Property Act, and as a secured creditor, the bank had valid rights under SARFAESI Act.
Securitization Application dismissed; Interlocutory Applications if any, to stand closed.
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.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE24THDAYOF MARCH,2026
PRESENT: SH.RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.COM.,L.LB. (HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER
SECURITISATIONAPPLIATIONNO.35O OF 2024
G. Ramesh, S/oSudershan Ahed 51years, Occ:Business Gender male,R/o NandiParthY Yacharam, RangareddY
.......Applicant.
Versus
.. ....Respondents
Counsel for theApplicant :Mr' A. Viiay Kumar Counsel for1't Respondent: Mrs. M. Kanakadurga : Ex Parte. RespondentNo. 2
-: o-B-D-E-B:-
2of4
SA No.350/2024"s
in cr. M.P. No.55/2024 and s6/2024 on the fire of the rearned Principal Senior Civil ludge Ranga Reddy,
2, The case of the appricant, in brief, is that he has the schedure property premises for rent from 2nd respondent in 2017 for a period of ten years, in writing. He has regularly been paying rents and in peacefur possession of the property. without informing about existing tenancy, the respondent bank obtained orders for taking physical possession. The respondent bank has no right to evict the petitioner from petition schedure property unress by foilowing due process of law, as per judgement of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Vishat N Katsaria with emphasis on paras 25, 26 and 30. Hence this SA.
3 of 4
sA No'3so/2024 ;';,,,":1T::[T:T:'reporredno orar ar( record. respondent o";*:;;:'ments' Heard the learned ed the material brought on
(ii) To what reliep
Point No.(i):
4of4
SA No.35ol2O24
I
Transfer of PropertyAct in respect of leaseof more than a year,on the strength ofan unregisteredinstrument as per Sec'107 of the Transfer of ProPertYAct.
Point No.(ii):
11' In the result, the Securitization Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Typed to my dictatton^b11the steno, "or:::t:d, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24h day of Mircn, ZOZO).
#6''o$
vTmESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether tenant’s tenancy is valid for lease beyond one year without registered instrument
Whether bank as secured creditor has right to take physical possession under Section 14
Whether applicant has locus standi to question bank’s possessory measures
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs Satish KumarReferred¶16
Union of India Vs Satish Kumar reported in (2005) 8 SCC 253 · Who else cites this
Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs Central Bank of IndiaReferred¶27
Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs Central Bank of India reported in (2019) SCC 3 · Who else cites this
Vishwanath Katwaria Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶17
Vishwanath Katwaria Vs Union of India
3 provisions across 2 enactments
IR Camesh
Indian Bank of India
M. Bhagyalaxmi
Rameshwarm Kothe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
