Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17125 = 2022(2) L.A.R. 320
Decided on: 09.09.2022
Present:
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 17(4A), 34 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order VII Rule 11 – SARFAAESI proceedings – Lessee rights -- Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application -- Even the period of lease has already expired -- Civil Court directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
(Para 1-4)
***
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. –
1. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with regard to the maintainability of the civil suit before the Civil Court has been rejected by the trial Court.
2. Admittedly, the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2002 Act”) are pending. The plaintiff-respondent claims to be the lessee of the property which is the subject matter of the mortgage. In view of the amendment made by Act No. 44 of 2016, Sub-Section 4-A has been added in Section 17 of the 2002 Act. Through this provision, any person claiming any tenancy of lease hold rights upon the secured asset is entitled to file an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
3. Section 34 of the 2002 Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court if the matter can be adjudicated under the 2002 Act. Once there is a specific amendment enabling the persons claiming tenancy or lease hold rights to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Civil Court has erred in rejecting the application. Even the period of lease has already expired.
4. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.09.2016 is set aside. The Civil Court is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to file a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
5. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Petition allowed.
********