VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

W.P.(C) No.13152/2009

1. The petitioners by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugn the order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). By the impugned order, DRAT dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners filed against the order dated 4.3.2008 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). By the impugned orders the DRT and the DRAT have rejected the prayer of the petitioners-borrowers seeking redemption of the mortgaged property on the ground that the auction purchase stood concluded and the stage for exercising the option of redemption had come to an end.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners as the borrowers availed of financial limits from the respondent No.1 herein Central Bank of India. On account of default of the petitioners in payment of the dues, the respondent No.1 bank exercised its rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Auction of property took place on 11.6.2005 after the petitioners failed to comply with the notice of demand issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 were the successful auction purchasers. It was only after about two and half years in November, 2007 that the petitioners made an application for seeking redemption of the mortgaged property by seeking to pay the outstanding dues. Applications were filed before the DRT in November, 2007 and January, 2008 and which were dismissed by the DRT vide its order dated 4.3.2008 and which order was confirmed by the DRAT by the impugned order dated 18.9.2009.

3. The respondent No.1 bank and the auction purchasers have disputed the prayer of the petitioners. The respondent No.1 bank argued that the objections filed by the petitioners to the notice under Section 13(2) were after the expiry of the statutory period and the reply was antedated to 9.11.2004 and which was received by the bank on 10.11.2004 i.e. after the statutory period of sixty days of service of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 9.9.2004. It has also been argued by the respondent No.1 bank and the auction purchasers respondent Nos.2 to 5 that the petitioners did their utmost and used all malafide tactics to stall the sale of the mortgaged property. It is argued that the petitioners falsely set up two separate tenancies claiming statutory protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. One tenancy was claimed in favour of Smt. Shruti Aggarwal (sister-in-law) in respect of ground floor on monthly rent of Rs.2500/- (i.e. less than the statutory limit of Rs.3500/-) under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The second tenancy was in respect of the first floor in favour of Sh. Harish Aggarwal (father-in-law) on a monthly rent of Rs.2800/-. These persons filed suit in the original side of this Hon?ble Court and this Court granted interim order against dispossession which continued till 23.12.2009. The suit also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 23.12.2009 recording that the suit is a collusive one between the borrowers and the purported tenants. In the suit, Local Commissioner was appointed to find out the actual persons in possession and the Local Commissioner reported that it is in fact the borrowers who were in physical possession of the property and that belongings in the cupboard were of Sh. Amit Aggarwal and the books lying in the premises were of Ms. Kavya daughter of Sh. Amit Aggarwal. It is argued that the malafides of the borrowers and the purported tenants became clear from the fact that lease deeds were on stamp papers dated 1.9.1998 but the licence was granted to the stamp vendor one Mr. Ramesh Chand only on 31.3.1999. After dismissal of the suit, the purported tenants filed an S.A. before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and which also was dismissed by the DRT on 29.1.2010 holdi