The SARFAESI Act, particularly Section 17 (4A) and Section 34, prevails over Civil Courts in matters concerning the tenant-landlord relationship and the rights of parties in secured assets.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted to set aside the order in OS.SR.No.26369 of 2022 passed by the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and direct the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to take on record and number the suit in OS.SR.No.26369 of 2022 as maintainable before the Civil Court.

2. The Revision Petitioner states that he is a tenant in respect of the premises at No.C-76, 14th Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600082 and he is continuing in the said premises as tenant for about 15 years from the year 2007 onwards. The first respondent is the Landlord of the premises. There was an oral agreement between the revision petitioner and the first respondent/landlord and thus, the revision petitioner claims to be the lawful tenant. The revision petitioner states that he is paying the monthly rent regularly from the date of his occupation as tenant.

3. Subsequently, a lease agreement was entered into between the revision petitioner and the first respondent/landlord for a period of 5 years. The lease agreement was registered as Document No.1351 of 2021 dated 12.04.2021 before the SRO Sembiam, Chennai, in respect of the ground floor of the said premises. The revision petitioner states that he paid an interest free security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the respondent/landlord. While so, the 2nd respondent Bank had issued Section 13 (2) notice dated 23.04.2021 under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI ACT’). The first respondent/landlord informed the revision petitioner that he had offered the entire premises including the leased premises as security to the 2nd respondent/Bank for a loan in favour of M/s.M.M.S.Iron Corporation/third respondent herein, which is an entity run by the grandson of the first respondent/landlord.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner is a lawful tenant and unconnected with the loan transaction between the first respondent/landlord and the 2nd respondent/Bank. In respect of his tenancy right, he filed a Civil Suit for Declaration to declare that the plaintiff should not be evicted except in accordance with the procedure established by law and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and his servants, agents etc., from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till evicted except due process of law.

5. The suit instituted by the revision petitioner was scrutinized and posted before the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for deciding the maintainability of the Civil Suit. The trial Court held that the suit is not entertainable in view of Section 17 (4A) Read with Section 34 of SARFAESI ACT. Liberty is granted to the revision petitioner to approach the competent Forum for redressal of his grievances.

6. In the said context, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated that the similar issue was considered by this Court in the case of M.Ezhilmaran Vs. K.Karunanidhi and others dated 17.12.2021, wherein this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and others, reported in 2016 (4) L.W.7, held that the suit for Declaration is maintainable.

7. The observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Vishal Kalsaria (cited supra) is that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit filed by a lawful tenant to save himself from eviction except by following due process of law even though proceeding under the SARFAESI ACT was initiated by the Bank. Further, a person can approach a Civil Court and seek a declaratory or other relief in respect of secured asset since such relief cannot be granted by the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal as they are not Civil Courts. Therefore, it cannot be held that the juri