S. Manikumar, J.

1. O.A.No.29 of 2012, has been instituted by Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai, against the third and fourth respondents, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, for recovery of dues, in which the subject property, which belongs to the third respondent, was mortgaged. Vide order, dated 31/12/2012, Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Chennai, issued recovery certificate, in D.R.C.No.124 of 2013, in favour of the second respondent.

2. D.R.C.No.124 of 2013, dated 8/12/2013, in O.A.No.29 of 2012, has been issued by the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal I, and Notice of Demand, dated 1/1/2014, was issued by the Recovery Officer.

3. Material on record discloses that, as on 22/9/2016, a sum of Rs.2,71,17,790.10/- (as per cost memo, dated 22/9/2016 filed by the Certificate Creditors), was due. Therefore, Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, in D.R.C.No.93 of 2014, dated 13/10/2016, has issued E-auction sale, Proclamation Sale, under Rule 52 (2) of Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, r/w. Sections 25 to 29 of RDDB & FI Act, 1993.

4. Claiming herself to be a tenant, third party applications, under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, in Miscellaneous Application Nos.162, 163 and 164/2015 have been filed, in D.R.C.No.93 of 2014, before the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - III, Chennai, praying

(a). to stay the proceeding in D.R.C.No.93 of 2014;

(b). to raise the order of attachment over the schedule property and to convey the same in her name on payment of balance sale consideration

(c). In the alternate to direct the Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai, to refund the amount paid by her towards sale consideration in respect of the schedule property with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., till the date of repayment.

5. Vide common order, dated 11/4/2016, the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal - 2, Chennai, disallowed all the applications. Being aggrieved, under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the petitioner has filed Appeal No.11 of 2016, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai. Vide order, dated 29/9/2016, Debts Recovery Officer - II, Chennai, dismissed the appeal. Consequently, e-auction notice, dated 13/10/2016, has been issued, bringing the property for auction, on 24/11/2016.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, in Appeal No.11 of 2016, dated 29/9/2016, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai, the petitioner has filed A.I.R.No.456 of 2016, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, along with I.A.No.81 of 2017, for waiver of pre-deposit.

7. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai, on 28/7/2017, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, has passed the following orders:-

“Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Rather she was a tenant of the borrower who had made deposits of Rs.30 lakhs made in the year 2012 with the understanding that she will get status of a owner in the house in which she is residing after repayment of the dues owed towards the owner borrower and prayed for presuming that pre-deposit has been made. Placing reliance on the order dated 2/12/2015 of High Court of Madras in W.P.No.15097 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 at Para 15, Ld. Counsel submits that aforesaid deposits were made in the year 2012 to satisfy the borrower, not the Bank.

Per contra, Ld counsel for respondent Bank submits that there is a dispute between the appellant and the borrower also. Appellant has filed a Civil Suit against the borrower for refund of money also. In such a situation, this deposits cannot be taken into consideration and prayed that pre-deposit should be directed on the basis of DRC amount, i.e.1.84 crores.

Whatever has been averred by the parties will be decided at the time of final he