The main legal point established in the judgment is the bar on civil courts to entertain matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act, and the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to examine lease or tenancy rights in relation to secured assets.

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 10.11.2017, whereby its application for rejection of the plaint came to be dismissed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the suit of the present kind, which was initiated by the respondent was not maintainable in view of the specific bar contained under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short SARFAESI Act). However, the said contention was rejected by the learned Trial Court.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for issuance of permanent injunction restraining defendants from causing interference in any manner whatsoever in business activities of Kabul Hotel, ousting the plaintiff by taking forcible possession of building of Kabul hotel and land underneath building, throwing threats to conduct auction-sale proceedings or claiming rights of any kind whatsoever of auctioning building and land measuring 0-76-16 sq. mts. bearing khasra no. 2284, 2896/2285 kitta 2 comprised in khewat no. 21 min. khatoni no. 28 min as entered in Jamabandi for years 2012-13 situate in village / Mohal Bharolian Khurd Tehsil & Distt. Una (HP) except in due course of law, in alternative suit for mandatory injunction directing defendants to restore original position of suit property in case defendants succeed in taking forcible possession or auction of suit property.

3. It is not in dispute that proceedings against the defendant were initiated under SARFAESI Act and it was only thereafter that the suit was filed by the respondent. Therefore, in such circumstances, the moot question is whether the suit is maintainable in view of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads thus:-

“34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction- No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).”

4. The issue in question is no longer res integra in view of the three Judges Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, State Bank of India vs. Allwyn Alloys Private Limited and others, 2018 (8) SCC 120, wherein it has been held that civil suit in respect of a matter in which DRT or DRAT is empowered to determine, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction to those authorities under the SARFAESI Act. It is apt to reproduce the relevant observations as contained in para 3 to 9 of the judgment which reads thus:-

“3. On the basis of the documentary evidence, DRT as well as the DRAT concurrently held that it is well established that the said respondents had legitimately created an equitable mortgage in respect of the said flat in favour of the Bank, which has had security interest upon the said flat. On the other hand, respondent Nos.5 and 6 (writ petitioners) have failed to file any documentary evidence to establish their subsisting title over the subject flat. On that basis, the relief claimed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 (writ petitioners) to restrain the Bank from proceeding with the auction of the subject flat stood rejected.

4. This decision of the DRAT dated 20th November, 2013 was assailed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 (writ petitioners) by way of Writ Petition No.7480 of 2014. The Division Bench of the High Court noted the plea of the writ petitioners and opined that the question regarding the right, title and interest or marketable title of the writ petitioners or any interest that could have been parted by respondent Nos.2 to 4 under the so called mortgage, invol