The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot override the protections given to tenants under the Rent Control Act.

1. The order of this petition shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.17248/2017. For the purpose of convenience the facts of W.P. No.17237/2017 are being taken into consideration.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.06.2017 (Annexure P/4) whereby the objections of the petitioner/defendant have been rejected by the District Magistrate, Bhopal in a proceeding initiated at the instance of the Central Bank of India under Section 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”).

3. The petitioner’s case is that he happens to be a tenant in the basement and ground floor of a triple storeyed building at plot No. 155, Zone I, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal with area ad-measuring 1600 Sq. Ft. since 01.03.2011. The aforesaid premises was let out by the owners i.e. respondents No. 4(a) Shri Kailash Narayan Patidar and 4(b) Shri Laxmi Narayan Patidar. They also created equitable mortgage in respect of the said premises in favour of respondent No.3 Bank in the year 2012 for securing due repayment of financial assistance secured by M/s Indicus Ventures Pvt. Ltd. On account of the default in making the payment by the borrowers. Respondent No.3 Bank moved an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before respondent No.1 for taking physical possession of the secured assets inter-alia the premises occupied by the petitioner. In the aforesaid proceedings, the Bank did not implead the petitioner as one of the parties, despite the fact that the petitioner is the occupant of the said premises. On the objection filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 the impugned order dated 20.6.2017 has been passed by respondent No.1 with direction for taking over of physical possession of the asset and a notice has also been issued by respondent No.2 Tehsildar, Bhopal for vacating of the aforesaid premises. Petitioner’s contention is that he being tenant cannot be evicted by the respondents under the provision of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act) and can only be evicted after following the due process of law as provided under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

4. The petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 2016 SC 530 (Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and others). In the said judgment, it is held that the provisions of SARFAESI Act do not override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no objection even if the aforesaid property is sold by the bank provided his tenancy rights are protected. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no alternative and efficacious remedy available to him as an appeal cannot be preferred under the SARFAESI Act since the same is barred as already held by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur vide order dated 21.09.2017 passed in Securitization Application No. 217/2017 wherein it is held that an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be challenged by the borrower before DRT only after losing possession and defendant can also prefer an application before DRT when he has lost his possession. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that as decided by the Apex Court in the case of Vishal N. Kalsaria (supra), the impugned order be quashed and the petition be allowed.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Bank has stated that the petition itself is not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal is available under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the appellate authority and without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground only. On merits it is submitted that the Bank has followed the procedure as laid down in the SARFAESI Act for recovery of i