The judgment establishes that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in matters related to tenancy rights under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has the authority to examine and protect such rights.

KULDIP SINGH, J.

1. Heard, the learned counsel for petitioner.

2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.7.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, vide which application filed by defendant-respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for rejection of plaint, has been allowed. Also impugned is the order dated 24.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which appeal against said order, was dismissed.

3. It comes out that present petitioner Shakti Trading Company filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants-respondents from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner from the disputed property without filing an eviction application on the premises that the plaintiff-petitioner is a tenant under defendant No. 1 in the said property. On appearance defendant-respondent No. 2, which is a finance company, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908, for rejection of plaint on the ground that defendant No. 1 alongwith her husband had obtained a loan of Rs. 4,25,00,000/- on 31.7.2013. The loan was to be repaid with interest in 144 monthly installments of Rs. 5,84,216/-. Equitable mortgage was executed in favour of defendant-respondent No. 2. Since said loan became Non Performing Asset and was declared to be Non Performing Asset on 5.11.2015, defendant-respondent No. 2 initiated recovery proceedings against defendant No. 1 under the 'The Securitisation a Reconstruction of Financial Assets Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (in short 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') and issued a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 29.8.2016. Defendant-respondent No. 2 is exercising powers under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for enforcing the security interests. Defendant-respondent No. 2 exercising the powers under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, authorized an officer of the defendant-respondent No. 2 company visited the premises to take possession of mortgaged properties bearing No. 3021 and 3020-B, Ajit Road, Bathinda. Defendant-respondent No. 1 resisted the delivery of physical possession. Therefore, symbolic possession was taken. Defendant-respondent No. 2 company filed an application under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 13.2.2017 before the learned District Magistrate, Bathinda, for taking over physical possession of mortgage properties and for providing police help as provided in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The learned District Magistrate, Bathinda, after considering all the documents, wrote a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, on 2.5.2017, for providing police help and also appointed Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bathinda, as Duty Magistrate for securing law and order situation.

4. Plaintiff-petitioner in the reply had taken the stand before the lower Court that the tenant can protect his tenancy rights by filing a civil suit. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is not applicable in case of tenancy because this is against the provisions of Rent Act. For the purpose of deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, 1908, only averments in the plaint are to be seen. It is contended that plaintiff-petitioner being tenant cannot be evicted, except by filing a petition of eviction under East Punjab Urban Rent Restricting Act, 1949.

5. The trial Curt has taken the view that under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. The view was reiterated by the lower appellate Court.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that in this case, the loan was taken on 31.8.2013, the tenancy was created in the year 2007 and the notice under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, was issued on 29.8.2016, therefore, tenancy existed much before the grant of loan by defendant-respondent No.2 to defendant-respondent No. 1.

7. The learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the Rent Note (Ann