JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby civil miscellaneous appeal instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Guhla has been dismissed vide which the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC had been dismissed.

2. As per version of plaintiff/petitioner, he is in possession over the suit property detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, as tenant under defendant No.1, vide rent note dated 30.03.2009, @ Rs.8,000/- per month. He was inducted as a tenant for a period of 11 months and at present, the rate of rent is Rs.11,200/- per month. He has been paying the rent regularly to defendant No.1 and rent upto January, 2022 has been paid and he is ready to pay the future rent. The tenancy is still subsisting and there is no order of ejectment against the plaintiff and he has also not surrendered his tenancy rights. Defendant No.1 threatened to dispossess him which necessitated the present suit.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement and reply to the injunction application and admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties since 30.03.2009 but alleged the rate of rent to be Rs.13,000/- per month, which was initially Rs.8,000/- per month. It is also submitted that plaintiff is not paying the rent regularly and he is in arrears of rent since January 2022 and dismissal of the application was sought.

4. Defendant No.2-Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited was subsequently impleaded as defendant and it also filed written statement and reply to the injunction application submitting that property in question was mortgaged by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 has already started the proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). This fact has not been disclosed by plaintiff and defendant No.1. Another suit bearing Civil Suit No.324 of 2022 was decided by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Guhla and the plaint has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Now plaintiff and defendant No.1 have colluded with each other to defeat the rights of defendant No.2. It is further submitted that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the present nature in terms of Section 34 of the said Act and dismissal of the application was sought.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, vide order dated 02.01.2023 and the appeal instituted by the plaintiff has also been dismissed, vide judgment dated 12.03.2025.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material place on the file.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in settled possession over the suit property, since the year 2009. Mortgage, if any, has been created by defendant No.1, after creation of tenancy and the same is not binding upon him and the financial institution/defendant No.2 cannot dispossess him from the suit property. Both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the material on record and position of law in the correct perspective and the impugned orders are thus liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 2685740, Central Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha Jain and Ors. and Law Finder Doc ID # 540988, Punjab National Bank Vs. Savitri Devi.

8. However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the case law cited by him is not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand.

9. Before proceeding further, relevant portion of Section 17 [(4A) of the Act is reproduced as under:-