M/S. Parth Exports v. Citibank N.A. And ORS.

WP. 7793-16 VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 7793 OF 2016 M/s. Parth Exports ...

Petitioner Vs.

Citibank N. A. & Ors.

...

Respondents *** Mr. Rashid Khan a/w Vivek V. Phadke, for the Petitioner. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ.

DATE : JULY 7, 2016 PC.

1.

Upon praecipe, matter is listed today under the caption "production".

2.

The Petitioner claims to be a tenant of the premises, which were mortgaged by the Tirupati Industries (India) Ltd. (Respondent No. 2 herein) to Respondent No. 1 - Bank by a registered deed of mortgage. It is clear from the averments that the property is in possession of M/s. Tirupati Industries (India) Ltd. and no third party rights have been created. The DRT has passed an interim order on an 1 / 2

WP. 7793-16 application filed by the Bank, appointing the Court Receiver to take possession.

3.

The Petitioner claims to be a tenant of Respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on two documents, viz. (i) unregistered document, which is termed as "Rent Agreement"; and (ii) various receipts, which are not having revenue stamp, of the so called rent paid in cash. These two documents do not successfully establish that the Petitioner is a tenant in the said premises. The Petitioner has an alternate remedy of approaching the DRT. We are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the DRT. The Petitioner can always exhaust an alternate remedy, available to it in law. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed reserving the right of the Petitioner to approach the DRT and seek appropriate reliefs. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [M. S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 2 / 2