Civil courts lack jurisdiction over tenancy claims regarding secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, as these must be evaluated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, ensuring proper legal redress.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Kangra, District Kangra in Civil Suit No.271/2023, titled as Kuldeep Kumar Guleria and others vs. Indian Bank and Ors., whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC for rejection of plaint has been ordered to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 34 to 38 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners/defendants to the effect that the land bearing Khata No. 875, Khatauni No. 1114, Khasra No. 564, 565 Kita 2 area measuring 0-12-50 hec. Situated at Mohal Rajiana Khas, Tehsil Nagrota Bhagwan, District Kangra, and land bearing Khata No. 432, Khatauni No. 665, Khasra No. 361, area measuring 0-03-25 hec. Situated at Mohal Jhikla Badh, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra as per jamabandi for the year 2017-18. The respondents/plaintiffs No.r 2 and 3 are co-sharer of the above land and the plaintiff No. 1 had established a registered cooperative society on 16.10.2021 under the name and style New Chamunda View Education Society and respondent/plaintiff No. 1 was its President. The Society was running a school under the name and style of Shri Chamunda View Public School Lower Dadah, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in three storey building. The above school is being run on the land owned and possessed by plaintiff No. 3 as a tenant since 2001 over the land in Khata No. 432, Khatauni No. 665, Khasra No. 361 area measuring 0-03-25 hec. at Mohal Jhikla Dadah, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra.

3. The petitioner/defendant No. 2 in the suit had granted a loan of Rs. 57 lacs to proforma respondents No. 4 and 5 on 15.02.2023 and an agreement of gaurantee was exeucted by respondents No. 4 and 5. It was further alleged in the suit that the petitioner had sanctioned a term loan GECLL on 30.10.2020 for a sum of Rs. 11 lacs to the proforma respondents No. 1 and 2 without the consent and knowledge of respondents No. 2 and 3. It was further alleged that a loan of Rs. 31 lacs, which was not part of the guarantee of the respondents/plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the bank had no right to recover the same.

4. It was lastly contended that since the bank without verifying all these aspects were trying to sale the assets, which was in the tenancy of the plaintiff, therefore, it be restrained from doing so. It was averred that building under the tenancy of plaintiff No. 1 was not liable to be sold as it was never part of the guarantee or the proforma respondents No. 2 and 3, as such the possession notice under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act), dated 27.10.2023 by the petitioner is wrong, illegal, null and void.

5. On being put to notice, the petitioner instead of contesting the suit filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction. However, the application came to be dismissed by the learned trial court constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition.

6. At the outset, it needs to be observed that neither the parties nor the learned Presiding Officer have cared to go through the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as amended w.e.f. 01.05.2016 or else there is no reason that such order could have ever been passed by the learned Trial Court.

7. Even though the arguments were addressed on the provis