SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI, J.

The instant petitions arise from the common order dated 9th April, 2015 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in A.I.R.(SA) Nos.136, 137 and 138 of 2015. Having regard to the commonality of question of law involved in all petitions, all petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, claiming to be the lawful owner of the subject property, filed three applications under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”), before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, questioning the legality and validity of the notices dated 22nd March 2012 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by the first respondent Bank, on the ground that the second respondent had mortgaged the property in question without having legal title over the property in question. The subject matter was under dispute with regard to the ownership and title. By judgment and decree dated 19th December, 2014 in O.S.No.7 of 2006, the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry declared the petitioner herein as absolute owner of the property and the two sale deeds dated 22nd November, 1996 as null and void.

3. The description of the property in the notices issued under Section 13(4) reads as under :

“Vacant Plot with A.C. Sheet shed, Old Door No.12, Lally Tollandal Street, admeasuring 412 ½ Sq. ft., R.S.No.239pt, T.S.No.98, Ward-C and Block No.25, Puducherry Town & R.V., Village No.40, Puducherry Municipal limits, Puducherry Sub-R.D. and R.D. -605 001.

Boundaries :

To the North of the Street, to the East of the house belongs to Natarajan and Lourdu Xavier, to the South of the house belongs to Lebinthokkan and to the West of the house belongs to Francois Martin.”

4. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai considered all three applications, being S.A.Nos.55 to 57 of 2012, together and dismissed all applications by a common order dated 13th February, 2015, holding that the respondent Bank has initiated proceedings to recover the public money under SARFAESI Act, which is not vitiated. There against, the petitioners have preferred three appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for short “DRAT”)

5. An office objection was raised to the payment of court fee. The learned Chairperson of the DRAT held that the petitioner is liable to pay the full court fee under Rule 13(2)(1)(c) and (d), not under Rule 13(2)(1)(e) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “Rules 2002”). Accordingly, the appeals were returned for compliance of office objection by the impugned order dated 9th April, 2015.

6. Keeping in view the question of law involved herein, Shri S.R.Rajagopal, learned Advocate was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. He has kindly acceded to the request of the Court.

7. The common question of law involved herein is as to whether a person, who is neither a borrower nor guarantor nor transferee from the borrower or guarantor in respect of the secured asset, but is the owner of the secured asset, is required to pay the court fee, as stipulated under Rule 13(2)(1)(a) to (d) or under Rule 13(2)(1)(e) of the Rules, 2002?

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is covered under fee schedule prescribed under Rule 13(2)(1)(e) of Rules, 2002, i.e., any other application by any person. The petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor nor has mortgaged the property in question. The property in question, legally owned by the petitioner, has been mortgaged by the second respondent, i.e., R.Gopal to obtain financial assistance on the basis of false sale deeds, which have been held as null and void. Thus, the petitioner is not liable to pay the court fee as prescribed under Rule 13(2)(1)(a) to (d)