The amended provisions of Section 17(4A) of the Act of 2002 exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to tenancy or leasehold rights with regard to secured assets.

1. Admit.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The applicant is the original defendant no.2 in the suit that is filed by the non applicant no.1 for grant of temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit premises without following the due process of law. In that suit, the defendant no.2 filed an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, the Code) seeking rejection of the plaint. By the impugned order dated 21.03.2018 that application has been rejected.

4. In the suit, it is case of the original plaintiff that he has entered into a tenancy agreement in respect of flat no. C702 on 10.10.2015 with the defendant no.1. That agreement was for a period of four years and the plaintiff was paying Rs.8,000/- per month as rent. On 31.07.2017, the Additional Collector passed an order permitting the defendant no.2 present applicant to take vacant possession of the flat in question. According to the plaintiff, as he is the tenant of defendant no.1, he is not liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the basis of order dated 31.07.2017. On that basis, the aforesaid suit came to be filed.

5. The defendant no.2 which is a Bank and a creditor of the defendant no.1 filed an application under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that in the light of provisions of Section 17(4A) read with 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the Act of 2002), the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That application was opposed by the original plaintiff. The trial Court by the impugned order held that on perusal of the plaint, it could not be said that the suit was barred by law. The application was accordingly rejected. Being aggrieved, the defendant no.2 has challenged the said order.

6. Shri S.D.Khati, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on a plain reading of the plaint, it was clear that the suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected. In the plaint, it was pleaded that there was a tenancy agreement in respect of flat no. C702 and with regard to the same flat, the Additional Collector had passed an order on 31.07.2017 in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 2002. The plaintiff was claiming right on the basis of the tenancy agreement and in view of the provisions of Section 17 (4A) of the Act of 2002, that right could be determined only in proceedings under Section 17(1) of the Act of 2002. He also referred to the provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 2002 to urge that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such claim was specifically barred. It was further submitted that the decision relied upon by the trial Court in the case of Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and others, reported in 2016(5) Mh.L.J. 321, would not be applicable considering the fact that the provisions of Section 17 have been subsequently amended. It was thus submitted that the plaint was liable to be rejected.

7. Shri H.F.Karbhari, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.1 plaintiff supported the impugned order. According to him, the suit was maintainable before the trial Court as the plaintiff was not a party to the alleged transaction between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Merely because the tenancy agreement was not registered, the same would not be a reason for rejecting the plaint. The plaintiff was seeking to protect his possession and his prayer was that he should not be evicted without following the due process of law. The plaintiff was not concerned with the dispute between defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. It was submitted that the trial Court rightly considered the law in this regard and rejected the application. There was no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I h