Case: Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. Internl. Assets Reconstrn. Co. Ltd.&amp; Others

of sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which state that notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The High Court has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act thus override the provisions of Section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, but does not override the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to the rights of a lessee under a lease created before receipt of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act by a borrower. Hence, the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment as well as in M/s Trade Well (supra) so far as the rights of the lessee in possession of the secured asset under a valid lease made by the mortgagor prior to the creation of mortgage or after the creation of mortgage in accordance with Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct and the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar it takes this view is set aside. 26. A further question of law raised in these appeals is whether the tenants have remedies under the concerned tenancy law. In the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is in force and this Act applies to premises let for the purposes of residence, education, business, trade or storage specified in Schedule I and Schedule II of the Act as well as houses let out in areas to which the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 applied before the commencement of the Act. Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is titled `Jurisdiction of courts and it provides that the courts named therein `shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of any premises and to decide any application made under the Act and the applications which are to be decided by the State Government or an officer authorised by it or the Competent Authority. The question of law that we have to consider is whether the appellants as tenants of premises in the State of Maharashtra including Mumbai will have any remedy to move these courts having jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and obtain the relief of injunction against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured asset from the appellants. The answer to this question is in Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which is extracted hereinbelow: "34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction.-No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).A reading of the second limb of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act would show that no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. Thus, when action is sought to be taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act or by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Court or the authority mentioned in Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act cannot grant the injunction to prevent such action by the secured creditor or by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate. Even otherwise, Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act vests jurisdiction in the courts named therein to decide disputes between the landlord and the tenant and not disputes between the secured creditor and the tenant under landlord who is a borrower of the secured assets." 27. We may now consider the contention of the respondents that some of the appellants have not produced any document to prove that they are bona fide lessees of the secured assets. We find that in the cases before us, the appellants have relied on the written instruments or rent receipts issued by the landlord to the tenant. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made `only by a registered instrument and all other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Hence, if any of the appellants claim that they are entitled to possession of a secured asset for any term exceeding one year from the date of the lease made in his favour, he has to produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour by the lessor. Where he does not produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour and instead relies on an unregistered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will have to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the possession of the secured asset for more than an year from the date of the instrument or from the date of delivery of possession in his favour by the landlord. Orders and directions of this Court in the facts of the cases before the Court:

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. When we read the different provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act extracted above, we find that(4) of Section 13 provides that in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within sixty days from the date of notice provided in(2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the measures mentioned therein to recover his secured debt.The High Court, however, has relied on Transcore v. Union of India & Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 125] for holding that the SARFAESI Act provides for recovery of possession byprocess and it removes all fetters on the right of the secured creditor and that the secured creditor is entitled to take recourse to any one or more of the measures specified in Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act to recover a secured debt, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. The High Court has also relied on the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Transcore (supra) to record a finding that the scheme of Section 13(4) read with Section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act shows that if the borrower is dispossessed not in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is entitled to restore status quo ante . The High Court has also relied on the observations of this Court in Transcore (supra) that the disputes which are sought to be avoided by Rule 8 read with Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 are those where third party interest is created overnight and third party takes up the defence of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. We have perused the aforesaid decision of this Court in Transcore (supra) and we find that in that case, the question whether the secured creditor, in exercise of its rights under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, can take over possession of the secured asset in possession of a lessee under a valid lease was not considered nor was the question whether there is anything in the SARFAESI Act inconsistent with the right of a lessee to remain in possession of the secured asset under the Transfer of Property Actour view, therefore, the High Court has not properly appreciated the judgment of this Court in Transcore (supra) and has lost sight of the opening words of subsection (1) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which state that notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The High Court has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act thus override the provisions of Section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act, but does not override the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act relating to the rights of a lessee under a lease created before receipt of a notice under(2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act by athe view taken by the Bombay High Court in the impugned judgment as well as in M/s Trade Well (supra) so far as the rights of the lessee in possession of the secured asset under a valid lease made by the mortgagor prior to the creation of mortgage or after the creation of mortgage in accordance with Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act is not correct and the impugned judgment of the High Court insofar it takes this view is setquestion of law that we have to consider is whether the appellants as tenants of premises in the State of Maharashtra including Mumbai will have any remedy to move these courts having jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and obtain the relief of injunction against the secured creditor taking possession of the secured asset from the appellants.We may now consider the contention of the respondents that some of the appellants have not produced any document to prove that they are bona fide lessees of the secured assets. We find that in the cases before us, the appellants have relied on the written instruments or rent receipts issued by the landlord to the tenant. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent, can be made `only by a registered instrument and all other leases of immoveable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession. Hence, if any of the appellants claim that they are entitled to possession of a secured asset for any term exceeding one year from the date of the lease made in his favour, he has to produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour by the lessor. Where he does not produce proof of execution of a registered instrument in his favour and instead relies on an unregistered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will have to come to the conclusion that he is not entitled to the possession of the secured asset for more than an year from the date of the instrument or from the date of delivery of possession in his favour by the landlord.