Tenancy under unregistered agreements is limited to one year under SARFAESI Act, necessitating appeal before appropriate authorities post-dispossession.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2026)

The petitioner, claiming to be a tenant, has filed S.A. No. 934 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) challenging the proceedings initiated for taking physical possession of the secured asset under the SARFAESI Act .

2. According to the petitioner, he came into possession of the building pursuant to Ext. P6 lease deed dated 08.01.2024 for a period of 11 months. It is contended that the lease was thereafter extended twice for further periods of 11 months each by endorsements on the reverse side of the lease deed.

3. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 659/2026 in the said S.A.

seeking stay of dispossession. The DRT, by order dated 17.02.2026, dismissed the application. The Tribunal found that the original lease period of 11 months commencing from 08.01.2024 had lapsed and that the endorsements on the reverse side of the lease deed could not be accepted. It was further observed that Ext. A1 (P6 herein) lease deed was unregistered and therefore, could not be relied upon. The only rent receipt produced was for the period from 01.10.2025 to 01.11.2025, and no receipts were produced to establish payment of rent for the earlier period.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India and Anr. ( (2019)9 SCC 94 ) wherein it was held that a tenancy created under an oral or unregistered agreement would not continue beyond one year from the date of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act , and upon expiry of that period, the tenant would be deemed to be a tenant in sufferance. In paragraph 12 of PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh Manoj Saha (2025 AIR (SC) 3337) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that by the 2016 amendment to the SARFAESI Act , Section 17(4A) was introduced enabling any person claiming to be lessees/tenants in respect of secured assets to approach the DRT against the measures taken under Section 13(4), including taking possession of the secured asset. It was also clarified that the order passed by the DRT is appealable before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), and the High Courts were cautioned against interfering under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in matters arising under the SARFAESI Act , See also, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu and Ors ( (2023)2 SCC 168 ) and South Indian Bank Ltd.and Ors.v.Naveen Mathew Philip and Anr.( (2023) 17 SCC 311 ).

6. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is not liable to be entertained. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P5 order passed by the DRT, the proper course is to approach the DRAT being the appellate authority under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act .

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to approach the DRAT, as certified copies of the necessary documents are yet to be obtained from the DRT. The said request is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

8. Taking note of the fact that the impugned order was passed on 17.02.2026 and that the petitioner approached this Court on 23.02.2026 without delay, I am inclined to grant the petitioner two weeks’ time to approach the DRAT in accordance with law.

Till such time, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 shall be kept in abeyance.

Sd/-