-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1996 OF 2010 Rajkumar Parmeshwarlal Agrawal ... Petitioner vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and others. ...Respondents Ms. M.R. Patel for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil Sayed with Mr. Vinod Kothari, instructed by M/s. Apex Law Partners, for respondent No.1. Mr. Satish Kamat for respondent No.4 CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. P.C. Considering the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal, we are satisfied that the alleged tenancy claim by the petitioner is absolutely dishonest as it is not in dispute that after receiving notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI, 2002, a collusive suit seems to have been filed by the parties. The respondent-original borrower is from Chhatisgarh. The petitioner claimed tenancy right of the said property. No evidence has been led even before the Rent Court showing that before the property was mortgaged with the Bank, whether any tenancy was created in favour of the petitioner. Not a single document was placed on record showing that the petitioner was doing business since 1999 nor the property was taxed by the Corporation on the basis of the let -2- out property. The Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons by holding as under: “The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the judgment in R.A.D. Suit has upheld the appellant’s tenancy and a right in rem has been created in favour of the appellant. In support he has cited a judgment of Patna High Court reported in AIR 1996 Patna 163 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar and others) and a judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan reported in 1986 (2) WLN 284 (Laxmi Narain Yadav vs. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.). In view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the same finding being confirmed herein appeal, it has been held that the suit before the Small Causes Court was filed in collusion with the respondent No.3. The suit is collusive and facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the creation of tenancy was a sham transaction, the aforesaid judgments have no relevance to the facts of the present case. The appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed with the following order.........” 2. In our view, this is not a case in which this Court would assist such a petitioner in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially when the original borrower has tried to defeat the claim of the plaintiff by creating theory of tenancy for which we do not find any substance. The Bank is not bound by the said decree as obviously Bank is not a party to the said decree. It is pointed out that the landlord himself has not entered the witness box. We accordingly do not find any substance in the writ petition. Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.