IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 7^th day of March, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON MA 42/2023 (arising out of Appeal No.10/2014 in IA 510/2014 in RP No.84/2009 in OA No.386/2003)

Between V.P. Thamaraiselvi W/o Late Shri Palanisamy, Mullukadu Thottam, Devarampalayam, Rakkiapalayam Village, Avninashi (TK), Tirupur District.

…..Appellant And

1. The Authorised Officer, Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.

Muthu Plaza, Avinashi Road, Tirupur.

2. M/s Sanghvi Movers Ltd., Regd. Office at S.F. No.92, Tathawade Taluka, Mulshi, Pune, Maharashtra 411 033.

…..Respondents Counsel for Appellant : M/s Ananda Gomathy & Co.

Counsel for R1 : Mr. T. Shanmugananda Vijayakumar Counsel for R2 : None

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 20 of the RDDB & FI Act, challenging the order of Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in Appeal No.10/2014 dated 7.10.2022.

2. Appellant filed IA No.510/2014 in RP No.84/2009 in DRC No.22/2009 in OA No.386/2003 with a prayer to defer the auction of mortgaged property in the recovery proceedings pending investigation into her tenancy rights over the properties and disposal of the application.

3. After considering the rival submissions this application was dismissed by the Ld. Recovery Officer on the ground that appellant had not produced any supporting material evidencing the continuation of tenancy after 2001. Against the said order, Appeal No.10/2014 was filed. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore had concurred with the finding of the Recovery Officer and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed.

4. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that Suit in OS No.131/2002 on the file of District Muncif Court, Avinashi seeking relief not to disturb peaceful possession and enjoyment of property was filed and the said suit was dismissed. Against the dismissal no appeal was filed. She reiterated the case of the appellant that she is a cultivating tenant and is entitled for protection under Tamil Nadu Tenancy Cultivating Tenants(Protection) Act, therefore, property should not be sold in the recovery proceedings.

5. In reply, Ld. Counsel for first respondent submitted that in the aforesaid suit, Ld. Judge in paragraph 6.8 found that property in Survey No.94/1, which is a portion of the suit schedule properties, is not in possession of the appellant. There was a submission made on behalf of the appellant that appellant was not pressing in respect of the property that was taken possession under the SARFAESI Act. In the said circumstances, the suit in respect of Survey No.94/1 was dismissed. This property against which sale under recovery proceedings was initiated was sold and possession delivered.

6. When the appellant had given up the right against the property proceeded under the SARFAESI Act, it is not known how appeal can be maintained. Not only that, before this Tribunal, no material is produced by the appellant that appellant is a cultivating tenant in respect of the property in which she claims tenancy rights under Tamil Nadu Tenancy Cultivating Tenants(Protection) Act.

7. Thus this Tribunal finds that there is no cause made out for interference with the finding and conclusion of the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore. Therefore, Order of the Ld. Presiding Officer dated

7.10.2022 passed in Appeal No.10/2014 is confirmed.

8. In the result, Appeal MA 42/2023 is dismissed with costs of the first respondent.

9. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 7^th March, 2025)

Sd/-

(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN)

CHAIRPERSON