ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in Unnumbered O.S.Sr.No.11832 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Alandur dated 06.12.2022.

2. The revision petitioner claiming himself as a tenant, filed a Civil Suit under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., seeking the relief of Declaration that the plaintiff is the lawful tenant under the second defendant therein and for permanent injunction, restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment as a lessee in the suit schedule property and evicting the plaintiff from the suit property.

3. The Principal District Munsif, Alandur, passed an order on 06.12.2022, stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [in short, 'SARFAESI Act']. The plaint was returned to file before the Debt Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction. The said order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the revision petitioner is a tenant and he is no way connected with the loan transaction between the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, his right as a tenant has to be protected and for that purpose, he filed a Suit before the District Munsif Court, Alandur for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

5. The very purport of Section 17 (4-A) of the SARFAESI Act is to prevent abuse of judicial process by the litigants, whenever the property has been declared as a secured asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Section 17 (4-A) was inserted by Act 44 of 2016 with effect from 01.09.2016, which stipulates as follows :

“17. (1).............

(2)............

(3)............

(4)............

[(4A) Where—

(i) any person, in an application under sub-section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy,—

(a) has expired or stood determined; or

(b) is contrary to section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or

(c) is contrary to terms of mortgage; or

(d) is created after the issuance of notice of default and demand by the Bank under subsection (2) of section 13 of the Act; and

(ii) the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured asset falls under the sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) of clause (i), then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of this Act.]”

6. In the present case, admittedly, the first respondent/Housing Finance Limited initiated action under the SARFAESI Act and a notice was affixed in the subject premises, wherein the revision petitioner is continuing as a tenant.

7. The revision petitioner himself claiming as a tenant, has to establish his tenancy as lawful and has to substantiate the same before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an application. When there is a specific provision under the SARFAESI Act for redressal of grievances of the tenant, who is in occupation of the secured assets, then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, in view of the express bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. When the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine the issues relating to tenancy, then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a Civil Suit and such Suits are expressly barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order passed by the Principal District Mu