High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12029/2017dismissed

Tinku Verma v. Indian Overseas Bank And ORS.

2017-05-30Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan7 pages

Gurbax Singh 2017.06.05 13:01

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12029 of 2017 Date of decision: 30.5.2017 Tinku Verma ......Petitioner Vs.

M/s Indian Overses Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Kalsi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.7.2016, Annexure P.9 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chandigarh (DRT) whereby the Securitization Application filed by him has been dismissed and order dated 24.3.2017, Annexure P.10 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (in short, "the Appellate Tribunal") dismissing the appeal filed against the order dated 25.7.2016. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the property consisting of one room, kitchen, bathroom, office, court yard and hall on first floor and second floor situated in Street No., Sardar Nagar, also known as Farid Nagar, Sekhewal Road, Ludhiana as a tenant. 2.

A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner entered

as a tenant in a portion of the property consisting of one room, kitchen, bathroom, office, court yard and hall on first floor and second floor situated in Street No.1, Sardar Nagar, also known as Farid Nagar, Sekhewal Road, Ludhiana vide rent deed dated 1.7.2011 under respondent No.3 i.e. the owner/landlord of the property on a monthly rent of 5000/- apart from electricity, water, sewerage, house tax and other statutory levies. According to the petitioner, the rent stands paid upto April 2017 at the agreed rate of rent. The electricity bills are also being paid by the petitioner though the connection is in the name of the owner i.e. respondent No.3. The Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana also granted the petitioner a licence to run hosiery business in the property under the tenancy.

The petitioner is residing and also doing his hosiery business i.e. manufacturing of jackets on job work in the said property. Thus, there exists a relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner asserts that Respondent No.3 in connivance with respondent No. 1 and 2 wants to evict him from the tenanted premises and is trying to eject him forcibly by getting issued notice by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "the SARFAESI Act"). Some persons alleging themselves from respondent No.1 Bank came to the tenanted premises and asked the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that the property was mortgaged by respondent No.3 with the respondent Bank.

The petitioner requested respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that he is a tenant in the suit property since 1.7.2011 so they should not ask him to vacate the suit property since his rights are protected under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. According to the petitioner, the property was mortgaged on 1.4.2012. The petitioner being a tenant filed a civil suit.

civil court under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Securitization Application before the DRT which was also dismissed. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed on the ground of being time barred. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner-tenant. 3.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4.

The primary issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner who allegedly claims himself to be a tenant in the demised premises can be dispossessed by the Bank-respondents No.1 and 2 under the SARFAESI Act for the recovery of dues of respondent No.3 under whom he is a tenant. The matter is no longer res integra. The issue has been concluded by this Court after examining the legal position with regard to the rights of a tenant in respect of mortgage property in CWP No.16193 of 2016 (Anand Sagar vs. State Bank of India and others), decided on 11.8.2016. It was recorded as under:-

! "

$ % #

&# !

% () *+,-

! &#

.! .

.! # &

# &# /

&$ &#

#0 ,1-2 &

&# # 4 &#

! 4

# $

! % &#

&# #

! & &#

& .

#0 ,5-2

0 , -2

$$ 6,5- . ! # 2

& !

% .

&$ $4

7 &

$ %

% #

3$ $ .

$ #

%$ ,- 2

&# # $ & &#

& &# 0

&$ !% .

&# #9 * & .4 & #

.! &# # $ &# $$ !

&# #

&# .

# /

&# #

&$ &# %

% #

' %

&$ $4

7 &

$$ &

2 &

! $ %

& # % 4 .

&# #)

$ #

! 4 %

!% &$

# &#

)

7 /

! % &# #

$$ !

7 #$ & & # .

& .! % # $

% 2 $&

).% .!

# $ $

$ !

$ &# #

. # #

4 4

! %

7 2 '

!$ !

9 5.

In the present case, as per case of the petitioner, he took the premises in dispute on monthly rent of 5000/- on 1.7.2011. Nothing has

been produced on record to establish conclusively that there existed legal, valid and genuine tenancy in favour of the petitioner except to rely upon copy of alleged rent deed dated 1.7.2011, which has not been shown to be a valid document being enforceable in law. The DRT on appreciation of material on record had concluded that the alleged tenancy was a sham transaction. The Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal holding the petition filed by the petitioner before the DRT to be time barred. 6.

# : #&

$ .!

,1*- 5;*1& !.

$ %

# "

.4 '

. .!

# &$

. 4

$ !

$$ 2.

! !$ 4 ! 7.

In view of the above, no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out with the impugned orders dated 25.7.2016 and 24.3.2017, Annexures P.9 and P.10 respectively. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge May 30, 2017 (Harinder Singh Sidhu) 'gs'

Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether referred to reporter or not Yes/No