prasanna kumar (individual) 18 January 2026

Eviction of an unlawful occupant of the premises.

DRT set aside the sale conducted by a bank. The auction purchaser challenge before the high court. High court granted a status quo. "Status quo, qua nature of the property, pursuant to the order passed by the DRT, shall me maintained by the parties." taking undue advantage of this the auction purchaser rented the property and leased it out enjoying rent. the writ petition was disposed directing the auction purchaser to approach DRAT by protecing his possession for two months. the banks appeal is pending before the drat. there is no status quo operating now and the drat has not statyed the operation of the order of drt. the subregistrar has cancelled the sale certificate. there is a contempt proceeding pending before the high court against the auction purchaser. now what is the procedure and forum to evict the tenant and repossession to the borrower. Pls advice whether advisible to approach drt or civil court for eviction or the conempt court as restitution.

Reply Follow

Quick Summary

This discussion addresses the eviction of an unlawful occupant after a bank sale was set aside by the DRT. The auction purchaser, despite losing title, leased the property. The High Court's status quo order was misinterpreted, and a Supreme Court ruling suggests the purchaser reverts to an occupant without legal rights. The advice leans towards filing an execution petition in the civil court once the occupant's protection period expires, or potentially the Rent Control Court if tenancy is disputed.

8 Replies

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 19 January 2026

The auction purchaser is well within his rights to rent out the property purchased by him which do not alter, modify or change its nature as directed by High High Court.

DRT and DRAT cannot overrule the order(s) passed by High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India.

You must have been enjoying professional services of a learned lawyer, what is his / her opinion and advise ?

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 19 January 2026

As the matter is still pending before a legal forum you may have to wait for the disposal for taking any action now

prasanna kumar (individual) 19 January 2026

Sir, with due respect. i beg to differ with you. when the drt set aside the sale, the property was vacant. High court has not stayed the operation of drt order. it only said maintain the status quo pursurant to the order passed by the drt. once the drt has set aside the sale, the auction purchaser has lost his title. how is he having any rights to lease out the premises. is it not altering the nature of the property. according to recent Supreme court order, Govind kumar sharma, his position is reverted to that of a tenant or an occupant without legal sanction. the protection given to him by high court expires on 15.02.2026 . in this case execution after that is maintainable. i was just asking which forum is the best. Pls enlighten me.

Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 ) 19 January 2026

The auction purchaser loses title upon the DRT setting aside the sale, reverting to a prior status like tenant or unlawful occupant, with no legal right to lease out the property or alter its nature.

The High Court's "status quo pursuant to the DRT order" maintains the post-DRT vacancy and invalidity of the sale, not preserving the purchaser's ownership or leasing authority.

Auction Purchaser's RightsOnce the DRT sets aside the SARFAESI auction sale, the purchaser forfeits ownership and cannot lease premises, as confirmed in Govind Kumar Sharma v. Bank of Baroda (2024), where original tenants reverted to tenant status without eviction rights for the bank.

Leasing would constitute unauthorized alteration, exposing the lessee to eviction as an unlawful occupant.

Supreme Court PrecedentIn Govind Kumar Sharma, the Supreme Court upheld setting aside the sale for procedural lapses, restored the purchasers' tenant status, and allowed the owner (borrower) to evict them "in accordance with law" after refund with 12% compound interest.

Protection under interim High Court orders expires as stated (15.02.2026), enabling execution thereafter.

Best Forum for ExecutionFile an execution petition in the civil court that holds the relevant decree (e.g., from DRT or prior proceedings) under Order XXI CPC, as execution of DRT decrees or possessory orders occurs there post-SARFAESI remedies. If tenancy is disputed, approach Rent Control Court first; otherwise, civil court execution is efficient for post-protection eviction of unlawful occupants. Supreme Court mandates speedy execution within six months where possible.

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 20 January 2026

Originally posted by : Aaron Buchhop
	When I bought my first car, I had no credit and ended up stuck with a bad loan. My debt quickly ballooned to $46K in credit cards and $87K in student loans. After failed attempts with Lexington Law, my cousin recommended Hackwest at WriteMe dot com. Skeptical at first, I was blown away when, in less than two weeks, all my debts were erased and my FICO score soared to 790. Thanks to Hackwest, I now own a home and a reliable car. If you’re struggling with debt, I highly recommend Hackwest, they truly changed my life.

Prima facie author is an intruder in the post.

P. Venu (Advocate) 20 January 2026

Any meaningful suggestion requires that the High Court's order be perused.

What is the Case No.? Which High Court?

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 21 January 2026

The interpretation of court order is based on your own understanding, to verify the genuineness, the orders need to be perused unless any further opinion rendered based on your contention would be a misguidance.

You may contact any advocate either from this website or outside to get clarified properly.