Back
V.GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY
VISHAL N. KALSARIA – Appellant
Versus
BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
The applications for impleadment are allowed.
2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
3. In the present batch of appeals, the broad point which requires our attention and consideration is whether a ‘protected tenant’ under The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (in short the ‘Rent Control Act’) can be treated as a lessee, and whether the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the ‘SARFAESI Act’) will override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. How can the right of the ‘protected tenant’ be preserved in cases where the debtor-landlord secures a loan by offering the very same property as a security interest either to Banks or Financial Institutions, is also the essential legal question to be decided by us.
4. In all the appeals, the same question of law would arise for consideration. For the sake of convenience and brevity, we would refer to the relevant facts from the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8060 of 2015, which has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2014 in M.A. No. 123 of 2011 in Case No.237 of 2010 passed b
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based on the language given. There are no clear keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or "overruled by" associated with any particular case. Therefore, no cases are identified as bad law at this stage.
Followed/Established Law:
Union Of India VS Dhanwanti Devi - 1996 7 Supreme 51: The case discusses the principle under the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968, emphasizing that the principle laid down is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. This suggests it is treated as good law and binding authority.
Central Bank of India VS State of Kerala - 2009 2 Supreme 529: Clarifies the nature of the DRT Act and Securitisation Act regarding charges, indicating an interpretative stance that is likely followed in subsequent cases.
Transcore VS Union of India - 2006 9 Supreme 425: States the legal position that withdrawal of an application before the DRT is not a pre-condition for invoking the SARFAESI Act, reflecting established legal interpretation.
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar VS International Assets Reconstruction - 2014 7 Supreme 601: Interprets the SARFAESI Act, Section 13(13), as overriding the Transfer of Property Act, and clarifies procedures for possession and lease, indicating a settled legal position.
Anthony VS Kc Ittoop And Sons - 2000 5 Supreme 172: Affirms that unregistered lease deeds do not lose tenant protections under Rent Control Act and discusses legal presumptions, indicating a well-established legal principle.
Bhanu Kumar Jain VS Archana Kumar - 2005 1 Supreme 102: Explains the remedy available after dismissal of an application under O 9 R. 13 CPC, indicating a procedural legal principle that is likely followed.
Distinguished/Commented:
Mrs. Sumati Suresh Hegde VS Mr. Anand Sonbhadra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 73: Emphasizes tenant rights under the Rent Control Act, but no subsequent treatment is provided to show it has been overruled or criticized.
PNB Housing Finance Limited VS Sh. Manoj Saha - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1065: Notes a difference in judicial opinion between Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Central Bank of India (2016) and the 2019 SCC decision, indicating that the later case differed from the earlier one. This suggests a possible judicial evolution or distinction but not necessarily overruled status.
Sagar Vinayak Bagade vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1186: Mentions Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India & Ors., but no treatment pattern is provided.
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar VS International Assets Reconstruction - 2014 7 Supreme 601: The detailed interpretation of SARFAESI and lease law appears to be a legal clarification rather than a case that has been overruled or criticized.
Uncertain Cases:
PNB Housing Finance Limited VS Sh. Manoj Saha - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1065 and Sagar Vinayak Bagade vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1186: These references mention Vishal N. Kalsaria but do not specify whether these cases have been overruled or criticized. The mention of differing opinions suggests evolution but not overt overruling.
The cases involving Vishal N. Kalsaria (2016 and 2019) show a change in judicial stance but without explicit indication of overruling or reversal.
PNB Housing Finance Limited VS Sh. Manoj Saha - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1065: The case notes a difference from a previous decision, indicating a change or evolution in legal reasoning, but no explicit treatment as bad law.
Sagar Vinayak Bagade vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1186: No treatment pattern is provided; thus, its current legal standing remains unclear.
Cases referencing Vishal N. Kalsaria (2016 and 2019) show a judicial difference but do not specify if the earlier decision has been overruled or invalidated.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
