Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Uday (Lawyer)     20 December 2016

Harshad govardhan sondagar vs amended sarfaesi act

Dear Friends,

You are aware that in Harshad Govardan Sondagar Vs International Assets and Reconstruction Co. Ltd.,  and others, the apex court has held that while filing a petition under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CMM or DM, we need to file an affidavit before the CMM or DM, stating that the secured asset is not in possession of a lessee  under a valid lease made prior to creation of the mortgage by the borrower or made in accordance with Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to receipt of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act by the borrower. The relevant portion of the judgement cited supra has been reproduced for your convenience.

 

“21. When, therefore, a lessee becomes aware of the possession being taken by the secured creditor, in respect of the secured asset in respect of which he is the lessee, from the   possession   notice   which   is   delivered,   affixed   or published in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, he may either surrender possession or resist the attempt of the secured creditor to take the possession of the secured asset by producing before the authorised officer proof that he was inducted as a lessee prior to the creation of the mortgage or that he was a lessee under the mortgagor in accordance with the provisions of Section 65A of the Transfer of   Property Act and that the lease does not stand determined  in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. If the lessee surrenders possession, the lease even if valid  gets  determined  in  accordance  with  clause  (f)  of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, but if he resists the attempt of the secured creditor to take possession, the authorised officer cannot evict the lessee by force but has to file an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and state in the affidavit accompanying the application, the  name  and  address  of the  person  claiming  to be the lessee.   When such an application is filed, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate will have to give a notice and give an opportunity of hearing to the person claiming to be the lessee as well as to the secured creditor, consistent with the principles of natural justice, and then take a decision. If the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate is satisfied that there is a valid lease created before the mortgage or there is a valid lease created after the mortgage in accordance with the requirements of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and that the lease has not been determined in accordance with the  provisions  of  Section  111  of  the  Transfer  of Property Act, he cannot pass an order for delivering possession of the secured asset to the secured creditor.  But in case he comes to the conclusion that there is in fact no valid lease made either before creation of the mortgage or after creation of the mortgage satisfying the requirements of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act or that even though there was a valid lease, the lease stands determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, he can pass an order for delivering possession of the secured asset to the secured creditor”.

 

Whereas the recent amendment to the SARFAESI Act has not made any changes to the contents of the Affidavit to be filed before the CMM or DM. Further a new provision has been inserted viz., 17 (4A) Where

  1. Any person, in an application under sub-section (1), claims any tenancy or leasehold rights upon the secured asset, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, after examining the facts of the case and evidence produced by the parties in relation to such claims shall, for the purposes of enforcement of security interest, have the jurisdiction to examine whether lease or tenancy;-

  2. Has expired or stood determined; or

  3. Is contrary to section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or

  4. Is contrary to terms of mortgage; or

  5. Is created after the issuance of notice of default and demand by the Bank under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act; and

  6. the Debt Recovery Tribunal is satisfied that tenancy right or leasehold rights claimed in secured assets falls under sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub-clause (d) or clause (i), then notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may pass such order as it deems fit in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

    Please advise

    1. Is it sufficient to file an affidavit under section 14 with the contents as prescribed in the Act.

          2. Whether the District Magistrate is empowered to conduct any enquiry including as to the claim of tenancy or the power of deciding the tenancy vests with the Debts Recovery Tribunal alone?

 



Learning

 5 Replies

Law Aspire (Legal)     23 December 2016

 "recent amendment to the SARFAESI Act has not made any changes to the contents of the Affidavit to be filed before the CMM or DM. Further a new provision has been inserted viz., 17 (4A) "

 

Please provide the attachment of newly inserted Section.

When it has came into force?

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com)     23 December 2016

what exactly is the problem to give proper solution. Whether you are a debtor or a lease holder.

parvatikarns   02 January 2017

The amendment vests jurisdictioon with DRT to consider and decide whether the tenancy is bonafide or not. If DRT were to come to conclusion that the tenancy or lesse is bonafide, the Tenat or Lessee is protcted from eviction under section 14 of SARFAESI. In such cases, the remedy available to the secured creditor is to approach Civil Court or designated Rent Court. But then other legal issues may arise, such as "Can secured creditor maintain suit for eviction?" 

1 Like

LAXMINARAYAN - Sr Advocate. ( solve problems in criminal cases. lawproblems@gmail.com)     03 January 2017

1) Can any body please give the link for original  SC Judgment   of GOVARDHAN SOUNDAR.

 

2) Regarding tenancy the amendment is there is SARFESI ACT authorising the DRT to look into the tenancy matters.

 

However prior to this amendment the SC  case of VISHAL KANSARIA  decided on 20th Jan 2016.will be applicable.for tenancy cases.

Uday (Lawyer)     07 January 2017

This is a debate in general. I'm the secured creditor in this.

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register