The court emphasized the importance of examining the rights of parties involved and the jurisdiction of the tribunal in property disputes under the SARFAESI Act.

Gita Mittal, J.

1. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Rajive R. Raj, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Inasmuch as we do not propose to take a final view on the merits of the matter, on the request of ld. counsel for the parties to take up this matter for consideration based on the writ petition which encloses the necessary record of the case, we have heard ld. counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.1.

2. The petitioner claims under a registered sale deed dated 22nd of April 2015 pursuant to an agreement to sell dated 3rd March, 2000 and related documents including a General Power of Attorney, Will etc. executed by the builder and the owner of the property bearing No.50-D, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi-110016 (“the said building” hereafter) in his favour. This position is admitted by Mr. Rajive R. Raj, Advocate who represents the Punjab and Sind Bank (“the respondent no.1” herein) as well as before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

3. The writ petition has been necessitated inasmuch as the first and second floor of this property were purchased by one M/s Sanpa Builders Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no.2 herein) who executed an equitable mortgage qua this portion of the said building in favour of the respondent no.1 in order to secure financial facilities.

4. The undisputed position on the record is that with regard to the defaults committed by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 bank was constrained to initiate steps for recovery under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” hereafter). In respect of these proceedings, the borrower respondent no.2 approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi by way of S.A.No.47/07 in which a conditional order dated 25th September, 2007 was of stay passed which was subject to the deposit of an amount with the bank.

5. In these proceedings, an order dated 15th of April 2014 was passed interdicting the respondent bank from dealing with the “property in question” i.e. 50-D, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi-110016 until further orders and that the property in question would be desealed within 48 hours.

6. On the 19th of May 2014, the respondent no.1 addressed a letter to the respondent no.2 with regard to desealing of the property clearly stating that only the first and second floor of the said building was mortgaged with it.

7. It appears that thereafter, on the 20th of May 2015, a registered sale deed came to be executed by the respondent no.2 with the Punjab and Sind Bank as the confirming party in favour of one M/s Amit Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. as the vendee. The ld. counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the following recitals contained in the sale deed :

“4. AND WHEREAS said M/s Sanpa Builders (P) Ltd. raised a loan as on 11th March 2003 from Punjab & Sind Bank Nehru Place Branch New Delhi (hereinafter called as the conforming party) and pledged/mortgaged First and Second Floor with roof rights of this property as collateral security to the bank. That vendor subsequently constructed the third floor of the building.

5. AND WHEREAS the principal officer of M/s Sanpa Builders (P) Ltd. Shri Pawandeep Sandhu passed away on 18.01.2005 resulting in the inability of M/s Sanpa Builders (P) Ltd. to pay back the said loan to the bank. That in order to recover its dues the bank took possession of the building under the SARFAESI Act and sealed the First Floor, Second Floor & Third Floor with terrace on 19/07/2007.

6. AND WHEREAS said M/s Sanpa Builders (P) Ltd. being unable to pay the dues the purchaser offered to buy the first floor, Second Floor and Third Floor along with terrace rights along with proportionate rights in the land beneath for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs. (Sixteen Lakhs only). Purchaser/vendee agreed to pay the dues of the Bank. Purchaser/vendee asked Bank to become confirming party.” (Emphasis by us)

8. It is pointed out that the above recitals are factually incorrect inasmuch as roof r