IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
M/s Alpha Beta Shiksha Samiti (Regd.) through its Secretary Smt. Manisha Gautam wife of Shri Sunil Gautam - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through District Collector and District Magistrate and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 10503 of 2016
Decided On : 23-02-2017
Result—Writ Petition disposed of with observations.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the M/s. Alpha Beta Shiksha Samiti inter alia with the prayer that action of the respondents in putting lock and key on the premises of petitioner's school; namely-Alpha Beta School at A-64, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur be declared as bad in law with further declaration that the petitioner's school would not be entitled for being dispossessed on the basis of order passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(for short 'the SARFAESI Act') and provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 will prevail and allow the petitioner to run the school peacefully and the tenancy of the premises be directed to be treated as having been transferred to the respondents from the erstwhile landlords and accordingly order dated 17.07.2012 passed by District Collector, Jaipur under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act be accordingly modified.
2. The petitioner is a registered society under the Cooperative Societies Act and running a school namely Alpha Beta School at the premises situated at A-64, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. According to the petitioner, it took the said premise on rent from its owner Late Shri P.C. Sogani in the year 1986 and since then the petitioner-society is running the aforesaid school and continuously paying rent to Late Shri P.C. Sogani and after his death, to his legal heirs. School building on the aforesaid premises has also been constructed by the petitioner-society and another school-namely; Vimukti Girls School having strength of almost 600 girls belonging to poor background, is also being run in the disputed premises. It so happened that the land was hypothecated by the then owner Late Shri P.C. Sogani for a loan taken by a company namely Unicorp Indus Limited, which is now under liquidation. On an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, District Collector, Jaipur vide order dated 17.07.2012 directed Respondent No. 2 to take possession of the premises. Thereafter, application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was filed by the petitioner-society before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, which was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. Said application was decided vide order dated 23.03.2012 whereby it was held that such application at the behest of a tenant is not maintainable and no remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Pursuant to order dated 17.07.2012, Respondent No. 2 put the possession notice on the wall of the school premises on 23.07.2016. In the meantime, the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the objections (RC No. 03/2014) vide order dated 12.12.2014. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.06.2016 receiver was appointed for dispute premises. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6171/2015 challenging the said order before the Delhi High Court. Said writ petition was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy provided under Section 30 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act with direction that the receiver shall not take physical possession of the mortgage property for a period of one week. The petitioner then filed appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, which vide order dated 02.07.2015 continued the interim protection granted by the Delhi High Court and the said appeal is still pending before the DRT, Delhi and interim order is continuing. However, in the meantime, the respondent No. 2 put its lock and sealed the disputed premises, therefore, the petitioner-society has approached this Court by filing present writ petition. This Court while issuing notices of the writ petition vide order dated 02.08.2016 stayed dispossession notice dated 23.7.2016.
3. Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner-society has taken the premises in question on rent from the original owner Late Shri P
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.