Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR Mr. Aditya Gaggar, Adv.

Key Points: - The SARFAESI Act overrides conflicting provisions with Rent Act and Transfer of Property Act in certain contexts, affecting tenancy rights post notice under Section 13(2). (!) (!) - If a valid lease existed before mortgage and is properly determined under Section 111 TP Act, the secured creditor cannot be granted possession until lease termination; otherwise, possession may be granted to the bank. (!) (!) - Tenants claiming protection under Rent Act may be limited; entitlement depends on whether tenancy is registered, proven by evidence beyond xerox receipts, and the timing relative to mortgage and notice under SARFAESI. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Section 17 (rights to appeal) prior to amendment allowed borrower/parties to appeal to DRT; current case discusses applicability and scope of appeal rights. (!) (!) - The Court concludes the appellant-tenant is not entitled to stay/possession protection; possession to bank ordered; tenancy deemed as exhausted or ‘tenant in sufferance’ due to post-notice occupancy. (!) (!) (!)

How to determine whether a tenant can retain possession under SARFAESI Act when a valid lease exists prior to mortgage?

What is the effect of Section 13(13) and Section 65A on tenancy rights during SARFAESI proceedings?

What are the rights of a tenant or borrower to appeal under SARFAESI in relation to possession and eviction?