IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 3^rd day of April, 2025 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON AIR (SA) 1919/2024 (Arising out of NDN (SA) 2773/2024 on the file of DRT - II, Chennai)

Between R. Ramanathan S/o. K.R. Subramanian, FG-1, Ground Floor, Plot No. 21-B, Door No. 11, Lakshmi Street, Alagappa Nagar, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010 …..Appellant And

1. M/s. Axis Bank limited Represented by its Authorized Officer, Mr. A Natarajan, Manager- Legal, 4^th Floor, Acrot Plaza, Old No. 38, New No. 165, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai- 600024

2. Surendar Ethiraj, No. 2B, Sai Nilayam, 1^st Main Road, Anna Nagar Extn., Velachery Chennai-600042

3. R Prabha Ravikumar No. 2B, Sai Nilayam, 1^st Main Road, Anna Nagar Extn., Velachery Chennai-600042

4. Mr. M.V. Prakash, Power Agent of Mr. Surendar Ethiraj S/o. M Vadivel Residing at No. 23/8, Ormes Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010 …..Respondents Counsel for Appellant : Mr. R.Ramasubramaniam Raja Counsel for Respondents : Mr. KVP Deepak Raj

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, along with a waiver application in IA 148/2025, challenging the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – II, Chennai in NDN (SA) 2773/2024.

2. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is a tenant in respect of the property mortgaged, concerning the debt involved in NDN (SA) 2773/2024. His lease deed was executed with the owner, the 2^nd respondent herein, on 02.06.2017. It is an unregistered lease deed and the period of lease is 3 years. When petitioner was sought to be dispossessed on the basis of the order passed by the Ld. CMM, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6028/2020 on 12.07.2024, appellant filed the aforesaid NDN (SA) 2773/2024. The Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – II, Chennai, without numbering the application, dismissed it on the ground that it is not maintainable. Challenging the said order, this appeal is filed along with waiver application.

3. Ld. Counsel for appellant further submitted that appellant filed a civil suit in OS 2100/2019 on the file of XV Assistant Judge, against the respondent 1, 2 and 4 for the relief of permanent injunction that the defendants therein should be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property except under due process of law. When this suit was taken up for hearing, the respondent bank submitted that the remedy available to the appellant is only before DRT and the suit is barred under Sec.34 of the SARFAESI Act. When appellant moved the DRT, it was dismissed as not maintainable. Appellant has legal rights to protect his tenancy and thus, this appeal is filed.

4. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

5. Admittedly, the lease in favour of the appellant had come into existence long after the execution of the registered mortgage by the owner, i.e., 2^nd respondent in favour of the 1^st respondent. The lease is an unregistered lease which is for a period of three years. A lease for more than one year is to be necessarily registered. Without registration, it cannot be received as evidence and no right flow to the tenant after the expiry of one year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs. Central Bank of India and another, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 94, settled the issue with regard to protection available to the registered tenants and unregistered tenants. If a tenancy is registered and came into existence prior to the execution of mortgage, the tenant’s right is protected. The bank has to take necessary steps for taking possession by invoking the relevant rent laws. If the tenancy is registered, but came into existence after the execution of mortgage, but prior to the issuance of Sec.13(2) Demand notice, the tenancy must confirm all the requirements under Sec.65 (A) of Transfer of Property Act. Unregistered tenancy is not at all protected. At best, the tenant can seek protection for one year, beyond