ORAL JUDGMENT

Petitioner, Dena Bank, has in the present petition challenged an order dated 8th October, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sihor below application Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.91/07. The petitioner has also challenged an order dated 8th October,2007 passed by the District Magistrate in case No.30/2006-07. The petitioner has also challenged an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No.2-A of 2007.

2. Some facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions be noted at this stage.

3. The petitioner is a nationalized bank. One of the branches of the petitioner bank is situated at Sihor in Bhavnagar district. The branch is located in a building known as Gautam Shopping Center which is owned by respondent No.2 herein. The branch office of the petitioner Bank is situated on the first floor of the building. The petitioner bank claims to be the tenant of the said premises since 1986, having been inducted by respondent No.2 herein.

4. In the year 1992, respondent No.2 filed Suit No.25/92 against the present petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge, Sihor for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the suit premises. The suit, however, was dismissed for default. As per the averments made by respondent No.2 in the plaint filed by him, possession and tenancy of the petitioner bank since 1.8.86 were admitted.

Subsequently also, a registered lease deed was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 30th December 2000 for a period between 1.8.2000 and 31.7.2001. It is further the case of the petitioner that even thereafter, the petitioner continued in the premises as a statutory tenant and has been paying rent regularly.

It appears that some time in the year 1996, respondent No.2 obtained loan from respondent No.1 which is a co-operative bank. To obtain loan, respondent No.2 mortgaged Gautam Shopping Centre, the premises in which branch office of the petitioner Bank is situated. Since respondent No.2 did not pay the loan installments regularly, respondent No.1 Sihor Nagrik bank initiated action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Securitisation Act”). After issuance of notice under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Securitisation Act, respondent No.1 proceeded to take further action under sub-section (4) of section 13 thereof. Respondent No.1 affixed possession notice dated 11.11.06 on the premises in question and also addressed a letter to the petitioner stating, inter alia, that from the date of possession notice, respondent No.1 is in possession of the rented premises and the petitioner should therefore pay rent to respondent No.1 bank and not to respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner has been paying rent to respondent No.1 instead of respondent No.2, original land-lord.

5. In appears that in order to take vacant possession of the premises in question, with the assistance of the police, respondent No.1 approached the District Magistrate seeking an order under section 14 of the Securitisation Act. The District Magistrate passed an order in favour of respondent No.1 on 8.10.07 and directed that the actual physical possession of the entire premises, namely, Gautam Shopping Centre, including the portion which is in possession of the petitioner Bank be handed over to respondent No.1 herein and in order to take such possession, whatever police arrangements necesssary be made.

In the meantime, the petitioner herein had approached the learned Civil Judge, Sihor by filing Regular Civil Suit No.91/07. The petitioner had also preferred Ex.5 application seeking temporary injunction against present respondent Nos.1 and 2 from evicting the petitioner from portion of the premises which is in possession of the petitioner Bank. On the said application Ex.5, learned Judge on 8th October 2007 issued notice but did not grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Since the Trial Cour