The amendment in Section 17 of the Securitisation Act bars civil court jurisdiction for injunction suits concerning secured assets, allowing tenants to seek remedy only through Debt Recovery Tribunals.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The State Bank of India (defendant No.2) assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court's order passed while reversing the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC").

2. In substance, the First Appellate Court has set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the plaint. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the grant of decree of permanent injunction. He claims to be the tenant of the borrower, namely Pardeep Mittal from the petitioner-bank. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the Bank on the ground that the proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "2002 Act") has already been initiated as the notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act has been issued and even the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act has also been issued. The First Appellate Court, while relying upon the judgment passed in Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Others 2016(3) SCC 762, accepted the appeal.

3. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the bank has filed the revision petition which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a review. In compliance thereof, a review application was filed while bringing to the notice of the Court that there is an amendment in Section 17 of the 2002 Act in the year 2016. However, the Court has still dismissed the same. The learned counsel prays for setting aside the First Appellate Court's order.

4. This issue has been examined in detail by this Court in Maan Mohan v. Kamal Parkash Goyal and Others (Civil Revision No. 8144 of 2017, decided on 20.02.2018). After discussing the effect of amendment in Section 17 of the 2002 Act, this Court has held as under:-

"A reading of sub-section 4-A of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 would show that any person, who claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, can file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to examine what is the effect of lease or tenancy. Clause (ii) of sub section 4-A of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 provides that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, if satisfies that the tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured asset falls within sub-clause (a) (b) (c) and (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 has the power to pass such order as it deems fit.

Obvious purpose to amend and add sub section 4-A in Section 17 of the Act of 2002 is to confer the jurisdiction upon the Debt Recovery Tribunal to examine the claim made by a tenant who claims tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset. Once the legislature has made a special provision enabling any person claiming tenancy rights on the secured asset to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal then in such circumstances in view of the special provision conferring jurisdiction on the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit for injunction shall stand barred.

Section 17 of the Act of 2002 as it exists after the amendment w.e.f. 1.9.2016 when read in conjunction with Sections 34 and 35 of the Act of 2002 clearly proves that the legislature never intended that the tenants be permitted to file the civil suit.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has very strongly relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and others, 2016 (3) SCC 762, to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the provisions of the Act of 2002 cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. He has further drawn attention of the Court to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 30 of the judgment to contend that while consider