25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rahul D (Executive )     09 March 2013

Tenant seeking relief from order 7 rule 11




A tenant is in a premises which as he now learns is a security interest to a bank by the landlord. The landlord in now asking him to leave the property before the agreement period. As such the tenant has filed an appeal before the civil court requesting for injunction restraining the landlord and the bank. However the bank is requesting dismissal of the suit under order 7 rule 11(d) with bar under section 34 of SARFAESI Act as the cause. But in the tenant's plaint, nowhere it's mentioned about SARFAESI. The bank has submitted judgements in its support. 


What best strategy can be taken by the tenant? It will be highly beneficial if relevant judgement can be provided showing the juridiction of civil court is allowed (as this is primarily a tenant-landlord matter) in such cases & that the interest of the tenant can be protected.




 5 Replies

Akshay Sahni (Founder/Partner)     09 March 2013

Dear Sir,

We would be able to assist you. For any further queries please visit www.indialawhelp.com

We have offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, Noida, Allahabad, Dhandad, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad.



Akshay Sahni



YOGESHWAR. (ADVOCATE HIGH COURT-criminal /civil -youract@gmail.com)     09 March 2013

The right of tenant is superior than that of bank and they can not force you to vacate and even the suit can not be dismissed.


Section 34 is related to powers of  DRT AND ADRT only and not under RENT CONTROL ACT  of your STATE.


Statutroy tenant is protected under RENT CONTROL ACT and it has not been bypassed u/s 34 of SARFAESI act.

Rahul D (Executive )     11 March 2013

Mr. Yogeshwar, thanks a lot for your inputs. Could you please suggest some judgements in support of the same? That would be helpful.


Once again thanks for your time & insights. 

YOGESHWAR. (ADVOCATE HIGH COURT-criminal /civil -youract@gmail.com)     11 March 2013

Since it is a property matter you should seek assistance of local expert advocates in the matter since stakes are high and no early solution possible by seeking advice on such public forums.


1) the provisions of o.7 -r.11 are most misunderstood provisions by many . This is the stage prior to issue of notice, once plaint is admitted it is not applicable.


2) Other side can apply for settlement of prelim ... issue on maintainabilty and pray for its decison and if the decison goes against you go for appeal.

Legal provisions are videly misinterpreted and misused for early recovery and lack of proper fight by the affected persons.

Rahul D (Executive )     13 March 2013

Mr. Yogeshwar, thanks for your inputs again. 

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query