1. The petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. His grievance is the property bearing No.17 situated at Vardhamanaiah Block, 5th cross, Shankarapuram, Bangalore is now sought to be brought to sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He claims title to the said property under a decree for specific performance passed in O.S. No.1977/1996, which is under challenge before this Court in R.F.A. No.1166/2011. However, no sale deed is executed in his favour, as the property was brought to sale. In the meanwhile, his property was brought to sale by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the SARFAESI Act’).

2. Being aggrieved by the measures taken, the petitioner filed an application under subSection (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, after contest, has dismissed the said application by its order dated 21.11.2012 as per Annexure `E’.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. On the memorandum of the appeal, he paid a Court fee of Rs.350/calculating the same under Section 13(2)(1)(e) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (for short `the Rules’). The office raised an objection contending that the correct provision applicable is Section 13(2)(1)(c) & (d) and therefore, he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.53,250/on the memorandum of appeal, whereas he has paid only Rs.350/and therefore, the deficit Court fee payable is Rs.52,900/. The petitioner contended before the Appellate Tribunal that the said calculation is incorrect and the correct provision, which is applicable is Section 13(2)(1)(e) and not Section 13(2)(1)(d). The Tribunal after taking note of the various judgments of the Tribunals, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is an “aggrieved person” and therefore, Rule 13(2)(1)(e) is not attracted and therefore what is attracted is Section 13(2)(1) (c) and (d) and therefore, it has dismissed the appeal.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Sri.Kallesh Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contended that as he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, when he has filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and when he has paid a sum of Rs.200/as a Court fee on the said application, in appeal he has to pay only Rs.200/as the Court fee under Rule 13(2)(1)(e) and not under Section 13(2)(1)(c) & (d) and therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be setaside.

6. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides for right to appeal. It reads as under:

17. Right to appeal.–(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measure had been taken:

Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.

7. As could be seen from the aforesaid provision, any person including a borrower aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of Section 13 of the Act taken by the secured creditor is conferred a statutory right of appeal. The proviso makes it clear that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower. Section 18 provides for an appeal to the Tribunal. It reads as under:

18.AppealtoAppellateTribunal.–

(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty