SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. ABDUL NAZEER, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
HEMRAJ RATNAKAR SALIAN - APPELLANT
VERSUS
HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. - RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).843-844 OF 2021 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s). 2969-2970 of 2016)
Decided on : 17-08-2021
(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(2) and 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 65A – Possession of secured asset – Eviction of tenant of Secured Asset – If a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to creation of mortgage, such tenant’s possession cannot be disturbed by secured creditor by taking possession of property – If a tenancy under law comes into existence after creation of a mortgage but prior to issuance of a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy conditions of Section 65A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – If a tenant claims that he is entitled to possession of a Secured Asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by execution of a registered instrument – In absence of a registered instrument, if tenant only relies upon an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, tenant is not entitled to possession of secured asset for more than period prescribed under provisions of Transfer of Property Act – Rent Act would not come to aid of a “tenant-in-sufferance” vis-à-vis SARFAESI Act due to operation of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of SARFAESI Act. (Paras 12 and 13)
(B) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 13(2) and 17 – Possession of secured asset – Borrowers have not claimed that any tenant is staying at Secured Asset – At the time of grant of facility, third party valuers had also confirmed that Borrowers were staying at Secured Asset – Appellant has pleaded tenancy from 12.06.2012 to 17.12.2018 – This is not supported by any registered instrument – Even according to appellant, he is a “tenant-in-sufferance”, therefore, he is not entitled to any protection of Rent Act – Even if tenancy has been claimed to be renewed in terms of Section 13(13) of SARFAESI Act, Borrower would be required to seek consent of secured creditor for transfer of Secured Asset by way of sale, lease or otherwise, after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and, admittedly, no such consent has been sought by Borrower in present case – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against the Orders dated 30.12.2015 and 06.01.2016 in Case C.C. No.381/SA/2014 passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, rejecting Application filed by the appellant herein for restraining HDFC Bank, first respondent herein, from taking possession of property in the appellant’s possession.
Findings of Court:
There is a serious doubt as to bona fide of the tenant, as there is no good or sufficient evidence to establish the tenancy of the appellant. According to appellant, he is a tenant of the Secured Asset from 12.06.2012. However, the documents produced in support of his claim are Xerox copies of the rent receipts and the first Xerox copy of the rent receipt is of 12.05.2013 which is after the date of creation of mortgage.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the Orders dated 30.12.2015 and 06.01.2016 in Case C.C. No.381/SA/2014 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, rejecting the Application (Exh.8) filed by the appellant herein for restraining HDFC Bank, the first respondent herein, from taking possession of the property in the appellant’s possession.
3. HDFC Bank had granted financial facility to respondent nos.2 and 3 (for short, ‘the Borrowers’) of Rs.5,50,00,000/(Rupees Five Crore Fifty Lakhs). On 03.04.2013, the Borrowers had mortgaged a property bearing Flat No.501, 5th Floor, Solitaire, Village Kopari, Adi Shankaracharya Road, MHADA Layout, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai (for short, “the Secured Asset”) in favour of the Bank with an intention to secure the said credit facility.
4. The accounts of the Borrowers were declared as non-performing assets (NPA) on 31.10.2013. On 25.01.2014, the Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “SARFAESI Act”) to the Borrowers. It is the case of the appellant that he is a tenant of the Secured Asset on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- since 12.06.2012 with an increase of 5% every year. He has been paying rent regularly to his landlord since inception of his tenancy.
5. The appellant filed Exh.8 application before the Magistrate seeking protection of his possession of the Secured Asset as the Magistrate was ceased with the petition under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act filed by the respondent no.1-Bank. Vide Order dated 30.12.2015, the intervention application of the appellant was dismissed by the Magistrate holding that there was no registered tenancy placed on record by the appellant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant is a protected tenant under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999. He has been paying rent regularly to the landlord. He has also paid advance rent till 17.12.2018. There are continuous rent receipts with him from the date of his induction as a tenant. The tenant was residing in the said premises on the basis of an oral tenancy from 12.06.2012. Therefore, he cannot be evicted from the Secured Asset without due process of law.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the rent receipt said to have been issued by the landlord for the period from 12.06.2012 to 12.05.2013 is of 12.05.2013 which is after the date of creation of mortgage in favour of the Bank. There is absolutely no material to show that the tenancy was created earlier to the date of mortgage. The tenancy pleaded by the appellant is an oral tenancy. At the time of grant of facility, third-party valuers had confirmed that the Borrowers were staying at the Secured Asset. The Borrowers, while making representation to the Bank, have not claimed that any tenant is staying at the Secured Asset. The tenancy claimed by the appellant is an afterthought which cannot be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on the record.
9. As noticed above, it is the case of the appellant that he is a tenant of the Secured Asset since 12.06.2012 and has paid advance rent upto 17.12.2018. The documents produced by the appellant are xerox copies of the rent receipts. However, in response to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the Borrowers have sent a very detailed representation wherein they have not claimed that any tenant is staying at the Secured Asset. The appellant has pleaded tenancy from 12.06.2012 to 17.12.2018. The rent receipt claiming tenancy from 12.06.2012 is a xerox copy of 12.05.2013, which is after the date of creation of mortgage.
10. Procedural mechanism for taking posse
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra
Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Anr.
(1) If a tenancy under law comes into existence after creation of a mortgage but prior to issuance of a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy conditions of Section 65A of Tran....
Tenants must establish valid, registered tenancy agreements to protect their possession against secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act.
MAIN POINTSSection 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will override section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.Therefore unless a lease is validly determined in terms of section 111, possession ....
The court ruled that tenants must provide substantial evidence of tenancy, especially when claiming rights under SARFAESI, and that High Court's intervention in such cases is limited.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of a valid tenancy can affect the rights of the secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the need for due diligence by b....
The SARFAESI Act's provisions on eviction take precedence over tenant protections under Rent Control Law when no valid tenancy exists.
Tenancy rights created after a mortgage are invalid if they violate statutory provisions, and tenants cannot claim protection under the Rent Control Act in such cases.
A lessee is entitled to protect his right under Transfer of Property Act and Rent Control Legislation even against a mortgagee whose right is subject to transfer of interest in favour of tenant.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.