Back
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Satyanarayan – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Sri. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Brajendra Amiy, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 6.
2. By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of an order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Bahraich in Case No. 542 of 2023 under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') directing the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bahraich and the Officer In-charge, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, Bahriach to take possession of two secured assets for recovery of debts taken by the opposite party Nos. 7, 8 and 10, for which the opposite party No. 9 stood a guarantor. They have also sought quashing of the consequential order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar Bahraich nominating the Naib Tehsildar Sadar Bahraich as the Magistrate for the purpose of taking possession of the mortgaged property.
3. The petitioners claim that they are tenant
Tenants must establish valid, registered tenancy agreements to protect their possession against secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act.
Point of Law : Tenant would not be entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which period evidently has e....
The court ruled that tenants must provide substantial evidence of tenancy, especially when claiming rights under SARFAESI, and that High Court's intervention in such cases is limited.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of a valid tenancy can affect the rights of the secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the need for due diligence by b....
(1) If a tenancy under law comes into existence after creation of a mortgage but prior to issuance of a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy conditions of Section 65A of Tran....
A Civil Court's order affecting possession of secured assets is invalid if the secured creditor is not a party, infringing Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
Tenancy rights created after a mortgage are invalid if they violate statutory provisions, and tenants cannot claim protection under the Rent Control Act in such cases.
MAIN POINTSSection 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will override section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.Therefore unless a lease is validly determined in terms of section 111, possession ....
The SARFAESI Act's provisions on eviction take precedence over tenant protections under Rent Control Law when no valid tenancy exists.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
