D. D. Sinha, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.5.2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal – II, Mumbai whereby the Securitization Application No. 18 of 2012 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed as well as judgment and order dated 7.8.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, whereby Appeal No.114 of 2012 filed by the petitioner against the order of the DRT came to be dismissed.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was having a possessory lien over the premises in question i.e. Office premises No. 106, 1st floor, 'A' Wing, 212, Dalamal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 and was in possession of the premises therefore the respondent could not have evicted the petitioner from the subject premises by invoking the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( “SARFAESI Act”) for the default committed by the REPL Engineering Limited in repayment of dues of the bank.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the respondent had registered their charge with the Registrar of Companies. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence filed by the parties and came to the erroneous conclusion. It is contended that only State Bank of India and not the Bank of Baroda or the other respondent had any charge over the subject premises. This fact is also established by the Certificate of Registration of Mortgage under Section 132 of the Companies Act. Therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner claimed to be in possession and has a possessory lien over the premises in question. It is submitted that REPL Engineering Ltd. (owner of the premises) in 1993, in 1994 and in 1995 had taken loan for the power generation by wind power from the petitioner, however could not repay the lease rents. On or about 1.11.1997, the REPL expressed its inability to settle its due and offered the premises for the petitioner's use on condition that the petitioner should credit monthly compensation and the outstanding dues apart from payment of society dues, charges etc. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the premises since 1.11.1997.

5. As against this, the counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that M/s. Heat Shrink Technologies Limited had availed certain credit facilities from the consortium consists of Bank of Baroda, State Bank of India, SBI Commercial and International Bank Limited, Bank International Indonesia and HDFC Bank. It is contended that Heat Shrink Technologies Limited at latter point of time was converted as RPEL Engineering Limited. The borrowing company secured the amount of credit facility extended by consortium bank, mortgaged its office premises No. 106, 1st floor, Dalamal Tower, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 (subject premises) in favour of the State Bank of India. Borrower on 9.3.1995 through its then Director had deposited the title deeds of the mortgaged property with State Bank of India. Memorandum of Entry dated 9.3.1995 was made in the record of the bank and the charge was registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) and ROC issued Certificate of Registration of Mortgage dated 13.10.1995. The said credit facility was extended by consortium bank and was renewed and enhanced in 1996. On 23.12.1996 the title deed in respect of the said mortgaged premises was deposited with the State Bank of India to create mortgage in favour of State Bank of India and the consortium bank. The Memorandum of Entry dated 23.12.1996 was made in the relevant record of the bank and the charge was registered by ROC in this regard on 31.1.1997 in favour of consortium. It is therefore contended tha