Cited:
1) M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]
2) C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78]
3) ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452]
4) Delhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729
5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148)
6) Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court
7) Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court
8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366], Supreme Court
9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], Supreme Court
10) Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6639 of 2012, Supreme Court
11) Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others. [(2007) 2 SCC 230], Supreme Court
12) Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2012) 11 SCC 224], Supreme Court
13) Transcore v. Union of India & Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 125], Supreme Court
Reportable
1) M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]
2) C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78]
3) ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452]
4) Delhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729
5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148)
6) Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court
7) Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court
8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366], Supreme Court
9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110], Supreme Court
10) Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.6639 of 2012, Supreme Court
11) Raghunath Rai Bareja and Another v. Punjab National Bank and Others. [(2007) 2 SCC 230], Supreme Court
12) Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2012) 11 SCC 224], Supreme Court
13) Transcore v. Union of India & Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 125], Supreme Court
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 736 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1666 of 2012)
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar …… Appellant
Versus
International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors. ….. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
Facts:
2. The appellants claim to be tenants of different premises in Mumbai. These premises were mortgaged to different banks as securities for loans advanced by the banks (hereinafter referred to as ‘the secured creditors’). As the borrowers have defaulted in repayment of their secured debts or instalments thereof and their accounts in respect of such debts have been classified by the secured creditors as nonperforming assets, the secured creditors have issued notices of 60 days period under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) to the borrowers saying that they intend to enforce the secured assets in the event of non-payment of the secured debts. As the borrowers have failed to discharge their liability in full within the period of sixty days from the date of notice, the secured creditors have exercised their right under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured assets of the borrowers. The secured assets, however, consist of the premises under possession of the appellants. The secured creditors have, therefore, made a request under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, to take possession of the premises and handover the possession of the premises to the secured creditors in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Threatened by dispossession of the premises under their possession by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the appellants have moved this Court in this batch of cases. Their case is that they are not borrowers, but they are lessees of the borrowers and are entitled to remain in possession of the secured assets. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544] has, however, held that when a secured creditor takes measures under subsection (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act on account of failure of the borrower to repay his liability and approaches the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured assets, the liability of the borrower having been crystallized, there can be no adjudication by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and possession has to be taken by a nonadjudicatory process and there is no question of pointing out to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at that stage that the person who is to be dispossessed is a tenant. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has further held in M/s Trade Well (supra) that the remedy of the borrower as well as a third-party is to file an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in case the borrower or a third-party succeeds, the Debts Recovery Tribunal can restore possession of the secured assets to the borrower or a third-party. This view taken by the Bombay High Court in M/s Trade Well (supra) has been followed in the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2011 of the High Court passed in the case of International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited v. Union of India & Ors. The grievance of the appellants is that if the impugned judgment of the High Court is implemented, the appellants have no option but to surrender possession to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, and move the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Such a remedy, according to the appellants, is not actually available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and if the remedy is available, it is meaningless as they have to move out from the tenanted premises and only in the event the Debts Recovery Tribunal decides in favour of the appellants, they may come back to the tenanted premises. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, they have, therefore, filed these appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants:
...................
Opinion of the Court on the questions of law raised in these Appeals:
11. The first question that we have to decide is whether the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have in any way affected the right of a lessee to remain in possession of the secured asset during the period of a lease. A ‘secured asset’ has been defined in Section 2(zc) of the SARFAESI Act to mean the property on which the security interest is created. In case of an immovable property, a security interest is created in a secured asset by way of a mortgage in favour of the secured creditor. There may be cases where before the mortgage is created in respect of an immovable property, the borrower had already leased out the immovable property in favour of a lessee either as the owner or as a person competent or authorised to transfer the immovable property in accordance with Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act. If such a lease is made, by virtue of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lessee will have the right to enjoy the leased property in accordance with the terms and condition of the lease irrespective of whether a subsequent mortgagee of the immovable property has knowledge of such a lease or not.
12. After the mortgage of an immovable property is created by the borrower in favour of a secured creditor, the right of the borrower to lease a mortgaged property is regulated by Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“65A. Mortgagor's power to lease.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub- section
(2), a mortgagor, while lawfully in possession of the mortgaged property, shall have power to make leases thereof which shall be binding on the mortgagee.....
...............
Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act states that the mortgagor has the power to make lease of a mortgaged property while he is in lawful possession of the same subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and such lease is binding on the mortgagee. Sub-section (3) of Section 65A further provides that such a power is available with the mortgagor to make a lease of the mortgage property only if and as far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the mortgage-deed. Thus, so long as the mortgage-deed does not prohibit a mortgagor from making a lease of the mortgaged property and so long as the lease satisfies the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 65A, a lease made by a borrower as a mortgagor will not only be valid but is also binding on the secured creditor as a mortgagee.
13. We may now consider whether the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have the effect of terminating these valid leases made by the borrower or the mortgagor made in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act , on which the High Court has placed reliance in the case of M/s Trade Well (supra) as well as in the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”
Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, provides that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus, if there is any provision in the SARFAESI Act and if there is any provision in any other law which is inconsistent therewith, the provision of the SARFAESI Act will have effect and not the provision of any other law. The only section in the SARFAESI Act which confers a statutory right on the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset and enforce the secured asset for the realization of the secured debt is Section 13. We will, therefore, have to find out whether there is any provision in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which is inconsistent with the right of a borrower or a mortgagor to make a lease in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the corresponding right of a lessee to remain in possession of the property leased out to him during the period of a lease.
14. Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“13. Enforcement of security interest.-
............
(4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:-
(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;
(b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;
Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt.
Provided further that where the management of whole, of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security or the debt;
(c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor;
(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt.
...........
(13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in sub-section (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.”
15. When we read the different provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act extracted above, we find that subsection (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 subsection (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. One of the measures mentioned in clause (a) in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease. Where, however, the lawful possession of the secured asset is not with the borrower, but with the lessee under a valid lease, the secured creditor cannot take over possession of the secured asset until the lawful possession of the lessee gets determined. There is, however, no mention in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a lease made by the borrower in favour of a lessee will stand determined on the secured creditor deciding to take any of the measures mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act. Sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, however, provides that after receipt of notice referred to in subsection (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, no borrower shall lease any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without the prior written consent of the secured creditor. This provision in sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act enabling the borrower or the mortgagor to make a lease are inconsistent with each other. Hence, sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act will override the provisions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act by virtue of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, and a lease of a secured asset made by the borrower after he receives the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 from the secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be a valid lease.
16. We may now consider the nature of the right of the lessee and as to when the lease under the Transfer of Property Act gets determined. Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, which are relevant in this regard, are quoted hereinbelow:
“105. Lease defined:- A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right ............
111. Determination of lease:- A lease of immovable property determines-
(a) by efflux of the time limited thereby,
..............
(h) on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other.
Section 105 thus provides that a lessee of an immovable property has a right to enjoy such property, for a certain time or in perpetuity when a lessor leases an immovable property transferring his right to enjoy such property for a certain time or in perpetuity. Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides the different modes by which a lease gets determined. Thus, so long as a lease of an immovable property does not get determined, the lessee has a right to enjoy the property and this right is a right to property and this right cannot be taken away without the authority of law as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. As we have noticed, there is no provision in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a lease in respect of a secured asset shall stand determined when the secured creditor decides to take the measures mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act. Without the determination of a valid lease, the possession of the lessee is lawful and such lawful possession of a lessee has to be protected by all courts and tribunals.
17. We may now look at the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to find out whether it confers any power on the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset which is in lawful possession of the lessee under a valid lease. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset (1) Where the possession of any secured assets ..........
.................
(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. “
18. The opening words of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act make it clear that where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor “under the provisions of the Act”, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof. Thus, only if possession of the secured asset is required to be taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor can move the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured asset. We have already held that Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act does not provide that the lease in respect of a secured asset will get determined when the secured creditor decides to take the measures in the said section. Hence, possession of the secured asset from a lessee in lawful possession under a valid lease is not required to be taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, therefore, does not have any power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured asset from such a lessee and hand over the same to the secured creditor. When, therefore, a secured creditor moves the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured asset, he must state in the affidavit accompanying the application that the secured asset is not in possession of a lessee under the 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. We would like to clarify that even in such cases where the secured creditor is unable to take possession of the secured asset after expiry of the period 60 days of the notice to the borrower of the intention of the secured creditor to enforce the secured asset to realize the secured debt, the secured creditor will have the right to receive any money due or which may become due, including rent, from the lessee to the borrower. This will be clear from clause (d) of sub-section (4) of Section 13, which provides that in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the notice period, the secured creditor may require, at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt.
19. The opening words of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act also provides that if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Act, the secured creditor may take the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate. Where, therefore, such a request is made by the secured creditor and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate finds that the secured asset is in possession of a lessee but the lease under which the lessee claims to be in possession of the secured asset stands determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may pass an order for delivery of possession of secured asset in favour of the secured creditor to enable the secured creditor to sell and transfer the same under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act provides that any transfer of secured asset after taking possession of secured asset by the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset. In other words, the transferee of a secured asset will not acquire any right in a secured asset under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, unless it has been effected after the secured creditor has taken over possession of the secured asset. Thus, for the purpose of transferring the secured asset and for realizing the secured debt, the secured creditor will require the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for taking possession of a secured asset from the lessee where the lease stands determined by any of the modes mentioned in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act.
20. We may now deal with the remedies available to the lessee where he is threatened to be dispossessed by any action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provide for a possession notice where the secured asset is an immovable property. Sub-rules (1) (2) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as well as Appendix IV of the said Rules, which is the form of such possession notice, are extracted hereunder:
“8. Sale of immovable secured assets.- (1) Where the secured asset is ............., take of such property…….”
“APPENDIX-IV
[See rule-8(1)]
POSSESSION NOTICE
(for Immovable property)
Whereas ................
Place: ___________________________________________”
A reading of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 would show that the possession notice will have to be affixed on the outer door or at the conspicuous place of the property and also published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer. At this stage, the lessee of an immovable property will have notice of the secured creditor making efforts to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower.
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.
22. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate or any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. The SARFAESI Act, therefore, attaches finality to the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate and this decision cannot be challenged before any court or any authority. But this Court has repeatedly held that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority excluding the power of any other authority or Court to examine such a decision will not be a bar for the High Court or this Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution because a statutory provision cannot take away a power vested by the Constitution. To quote, the observations of this Court in Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2012) 11 SCC 224]:
“17. Considering the settled position of law that the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution could not be affected by the provisions made in a statute by the Legislature making the decision of the tribunal final or conclusive, we hold that sub-section (1) of Section 245S of the Act, insofar as, it makes the advance ruling of the Authority binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction and on the Commissioner and income-tax authorities subordinate to him, does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution or the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to the advance ruling of the Authority.” In our view, therefore, the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by any aggrieved party and if such a challenge is made, the High Court can examine the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, in accordance with the settled principles of law.
23. We may next consider whether a lessee has any remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act when the secured creditor attempts to take over possession of the secured asset which is in possession of the lessee. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act are extracted hereinbelow:
“17. Right to appeal.--(1) Any person ............... under sub-section (4) of section 13.”
24. When we read sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, we find that under the said sub-section “any person (including borrower)”, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under the Chapter, may apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. We agree with the Mr. Vikas Singh that the words ‘any person’ are wide enough to include a lessee also. It is also possible to take a view that within 45 days from the date on which a possession notice is delivered or affixed or published under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, a lessee may file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter for restoration of possession in case he is dispossessed of the secured asset. But when we read subsection (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, we find that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has powers to restore possession of the secured asset to the borrower only and not to any person such as a lessee. Hence, even if the Debt Recovery Tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot restore possession of the secured asset to the lessee. Where, therefore, the Debts Recovery Tribunal considers the application of the lessee and comes to the conclusion that the lease in favour of the lessee was made prior to the creation of mortgage or the lease though made after the creation of mortgage is in accordance with the requirements of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and the lease was valid and binding on the mortgagee and the lease is yet to be determined, the Debts Recovery Tribunal will not have the power to restore possession of the secured asset to the lessee. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to the lessee to protect his lawful possession under a valid lease.
25. 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 by nonadjudicatory process 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 Act considered. In our 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 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 ..........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:
28. Having expressed our opinion on the different questions of law raised in these appeals, we may now pass orders and directions considering the broad facts of the three different categories of the case before us:
(i) In Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.9426 of 2012, 9170 of 2012, 9163 of 2012, 9253 of 2012, 9164 of 2012, 9160 of 2012, 379 of 2013, 1467 of 2013, 1782 of 2013, 3575 of 2013, 4062 of 2012, 4063 of 2012, 4053 of 2012, 4068 of 2012, 4119 of 2012, 4129 of 2012, 7835 of 2013, 8365 of 2013, 9217 of 2013, 10346 of 2013, 6587 of 2012, 6639 of 2012, 6523 of 2012, 6622 of 2012, 7731 of 2012, 7747 of 2012 and 4618 of 2012, the appellants claim that they are in possession of the secured asset under a lease made prior to the mortgage but the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, has passed orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for delivery of possession of the secured asset to the respective secured creditors. These orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the secured creditors.
(ii) In Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.4064 of 2012, 4117 of 2012, 4114 of 2012, 4124 of 2012, 4052 of 2012, 4058 of 2012, 4061 of 2012, 4057 of 2012, 4620 of 2012, 6612 of 2012, 7722 of 2012, 7744 of 2012, 7749 of 2012, 7743 of 2012, 4130 of 2012 and 4125 of 2012 when the appellants filed the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the applications of the secured creditors under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were pending. In case the applications are still pending, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will consider the claims of the appellants that they were in possession of the secured asset under a lease made prior to the creation of the mortgage and decide the applications under Section 14 in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant. In case, during the pendency of these appeals, orders have been passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the orders so passed will stand quashed and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate will pass fresh orders in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the secured creditors.
(iii) In the Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.4619 of 2012, 6598 of 2012, 6522 of 2012, 7745 of 2012, 7746 of 2012 and 4120 of 2012, when the Special Leave Petitions were filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, no application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been filed by the secured creditors. In case such application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been filed in the meanwhile or is filed in future, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will decide the applications in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the secured creditors.
(iv) In all these appeals, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will pass final orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within four months from the date of filing of certified copy of this judgment by either the lessee/tenant or the secured creditor.
(v) With the aforesaid directions and orders, the appeals are allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
.……………………….J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
………………………..J.
(V. Gopala Gowda)
New Delhi,
April 03, 2014.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 736 OF 2014
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1666 of 2012)
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar …… Appellant
Versus
International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors. ….. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
Facts:
2. The appellants claim to be tenants of different premises in Mumbai. These premises were mortgaged to different banks as securities for loans advanced by the banks (hereinafter referred to as ‘the secured creditors’). As the borrowers have defaulted in repayment of their secured debts or instalments thereof and their accounts in respect of such debts have been classified by the secured creditors as nonperforming assets, the secured creditors have issued notices of 60 days period under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SARFAESI Act’) to the borrowers saying that they intend to enforce the secured assets in the event of non-payment of the secured debts. As the borrowers have failed to discharge their liability in full within the period of sixty days from the date of notice, the secured creditors have exercised their right under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured assets of the borrowers. The secured assets, however, consist of the premises under possession of the appellants. The secured creditors have, therefore, made a request under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, to take possession of the premises and handover the possession of the premises to the secured creditors in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Threatened by dispossession of the premises under their possession by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the appellants have moved this Court in this batch of cases. Their case is that they are not borrowers, but they are lessees of the borrowers and are entitled to remain in possession of the secured assets. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544] has, however, held that when a secured creditor takes measures under subsection (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act on account of failure of the borrower to repay his liability and approaches the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured assets, the liability of the borrower having been crystallized, there can be no adjudication by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and possession has to be taken by a nonadjudicatory process and there is no question of pointing out to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at that stage that the person who is to be dispossessed is a tenant. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has further held in M/s Trade Well (supra) that the remedy of the borrower as well as a third-party is to file an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in case the borrower or a third-party succeeds, the Debts Recovery Tribunal can restore possession of the secured assets to the borrower or a third-party. This view taken by the Bombay High Court in M/s Trade Well (supra) has been followed in the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2011 of the High Court passed in the case of International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited v. Union of India & Ors. The grievance of the appellants is that if the impugned judgment of the High Court is implemented, the appellants have no option but to surrender possession to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, and move the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Such a remedy, according to the appellants, is not actually available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and if the remedy is available, it is meaningless as they have to move out from the tenanted premises and only in the event the Debts Recovery Tribunal decides in favour of the appellants, they may come back to the tenanted premises. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, they have, therefore, filed these appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants:
...................
Opinion of the Court on the questions of law raised in these Appeals:
11. The first question that we have to decide is whether the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have in any way affected the right of a lessee to remain in possession of the secured asset during the period of a lease. A ‘secured asset’ has been defined in Section 2(zc) of the SARFAESI Act to mean the property on which the security interest is created. In case of an immovable property, a security interest is created in a secured asset by way of a mortgage in favour of the secured creditor. There may be cases where before the mortgage is created in respect of an immovable property, the borrower had already leased out the immovable property in favour of a lessee either as the owner or as a person competent or authorised to transfer the immovable property in accordance with Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act. If such a lease is made, by virtue of Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lessee will have the right to enjoy the leased property in accordance with the terms and condition of the lease irrespective of whether a subsequent mortgagee of the immovable property has knowledge of such a lease or not.
12. After the mortgage of an immovable property is created by the borrower in favour of a secured creditor, the right of the borrower to lease a mortgaged property is regulated by Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“65A. Mortgagor's power to lease.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub- section
(2), a mortgagor, while lawfully in possession of the mortgaged property, shall have power to make leases thereof which shall be binding on the mortgagee.....
...............
Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act states that the mortgagor has the power to make lease of a mortgaged property while he is in lawful possession of the same subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and such lease is binding on the mortgagee. Sub-section (3) of Section 65A further provides that such a power is available with the mortgagor to make a lease of the mortgage property only if and as far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the mortgage-deed. Thus, so long as the mortgage-deed does not prohibit a mortgagor from making a lease of the mortgaged property and so long as the lease satisfies the requirements of sub-section (2) of Section 65A, a lease made by a borrower as a mortgagor will not only be valid but is also binding on the secured creditor as a mortgagee.
13. We may now consider whether the provisions of the SARFAESI Act have the effect of terminating these valid leases made by the borrower or the mortgagor made in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act , on which the High Court has placed reliance in the case of M/s Trade Well (supra) as well as in the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.”
Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, provides that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Thus, if there is any provision in the SARFAESI Act and if there is any provision in any other law which is inconsistent therewith, the provision of the SARFAESI Act will have effect and not the provision of any other law. The only section in the SARFAESI Act which confers a statutory right on the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset and enforce the secured asset for the realization of the secured debt is Section 13. We will, therefore, have to find out whether there is any provision in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which is inconsistent with the right of a borrower or a mortgagor to make a lease in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the corresponding right of a lessee to remain in possession of the property leased out to him during the period of a lease.
14. Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“13. Enforcement of security interest.-
............
(4) In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:-
(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;
(b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;
Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt.
Provided further that where the management of whole, of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security or the debt;
(c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor;
(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt.
...........
(13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in sub-section (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor.”
15. When we read the different provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act extracted above, we find that subsection (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 subsection (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. One of the measures mentioned in clause (a) in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act is to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease. Where, however, the lawful possession of the secured asset is not with the borrower, but with the lessee under a valid lease, the secured creditor cannot take over possession of the secured asset until the lawful possession of the lessee gets determined. There is, however, no mention in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a lease made by the borrower in favour of a lessee will stand determined on the secured creditor deciding to take any of the measures mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act. Sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, however, provides that after receipt of notice referred to in subsection (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, no borrower shall lease any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without the prior written consent of the secured creditor. This provision in sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act enabling the borrower or the mortgagor to make a lease are inconsistent with each other. Hence, sub-section (13) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act will override the provisions of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act by virtue of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, and a lease of a secured asset made by the borrower after he receives the notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 from the secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be a valid lease.
16. We may now consider the nature of the right of the lessee and as to when the lease under the Transfer of Property Act gets determined. Sections 105 and 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, which are relevant in this regard, are quoted hereinbelow:
“105. Lease defined:- A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right ............
111. Determination of lease:- A lease of immovable property determines-
(a) by efflux of the time limited thereby,
..............
(h) on the expiration of a notice to determine the lease, or to quit, or of intention to quit, the property leased, duly given by one party to the other.
Section 105 thus provides that a lessee of an immovable property has a right to enjoy such property, for a certain time or in perpetuity when a lessor leases an immovable property transferring his right to enjoy such property for a certain time or in perpetuity. Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides the different modes by which a lease gets determined. Thus, so long as a lease of an immovable property does not get determined, the lessee has a right to enjoy the property and this right is a right to property and this right cannot be taken away without the authority of law as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. As we have noticed, there is no provision in Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act that a lease in respect of a secured asset shall stand determined when the secured creditor decides to take the measures mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act. Without the determination of a valid lease, the possession of the lessee is lawful and such lawful possession of a lessee has to be protected by all courts and tribunals.
17. We may now look at the provisions of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to find out whether it confers any power on the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset which is in lawful possession of the lessee under a valid lease. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset (1) Where the possession of any secured assets ..........
.................
(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. “
18. The opening words of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act make it clear that where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor “under the provisions of the Act”, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof. Thus, only if possession of the secured asset is required to be taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor can move the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured asset. We have already held that Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act does not provide that the lease in respect of a secured asset will get determined when the secured creditor decides to take the measures in the said section. Hence, possession of the secured asset from a lessee in lawful possession under a valid lease is not required to be taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, therefore, does not have any power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured asset from such a lessee and hand over the same to the secured creditor. When, therefore, a secured creditor moves the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured asset, he must state in the affidavit accompanying the application that the secured asset is not in possession of a lessee under the 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. We would like to clarify that even in such cases where the secured creditor is unable to take possession of the secured asset after expiry of the period 60 days of the notice to the borrower of the intention of the secured creditor to enforce the secured asset to realize the secured debt, the secured creditor will have the right to receive any money due or which may become due, including rent, from the lessee to the borrower. This will be clear from clause (d) of sub-section (4) of Section 13, which provides that in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the notice period, the secured creditor may require, at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt.
19. The opening words of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act also provides that if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of the Act, the secured creditor may take the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate. Where, therefore, such a request is made by the secured creditor and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate finds that the secured asset is in possession of a lessee but the lease under which the lessee claims to be in possession of the secured asset stands determined in accordance with Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may pass an order for delivery of possession of secured asset in favour of the secured creditor to enable the secured creditor to sell and transfer the same under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act provides that any transfer of secured asset after taking possession of secured asset by the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in, or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset. In other words, the transferee of a secured asset will not acquire any right in a secured asset under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, unless it has been effected after the secured creditor has taken over possession of the secured asset. Thus, for the purpose of transferring the secured asset and for realizing the secured debt, the secured creditor will require the assistance of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for taking possession of a secured asset from the lessee where the lease stands determined by any of the modes mentioned in Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act.
20. We may now deal with the remedies available to the lessee where he is threatened to be dispossessed by any action taken by the secured creditor under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 provide for a possession notice where the secured asset is an immovable property. Sub-rules (1) (2) and (3) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as well as Appendix IV of the said Rules, which is the form of such possession notice, are extracted hereunder:
“8. Sale of immovable secured assets.- (1) Where the secured asset is ............., take of such property…….”
“APPENDIX-IV
[See rule-8(1)]
POSSESSION NOTICE
(for Immovable property)
Whereas ................
Place: ___________________________________________”
A reading of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 would show that the possession notice will have to be affixed on the outer door or at the conspicuous place of the property and also published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer. At this stage, the lessee of an immovable property will have notice of the secured creditor making efforts to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower.
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.
22. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate or any officer authorised by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of Section 14 shall be called in question in any court or before any authority. The SARFAESI Act, therefore, attaches finality to the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate and this decision cannot be challenged before any court or any authority. But this Court has repeatedly held that statutory provisions attaching finality to the decision of an authority excluding the power of any other authority or Court to examine such a decision will not be a bar for the High Court or this Court to exercise jurisdiction vested by the Constitution because a statutory provision cannot take away a power vested by the Constitution. To quote, the observations of this Court in Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore [(2012) 11 SCC 224]:
“17. Considering the settled position of law that the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and the powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution could not be affected by the provisions made in a statute by the Legislature making the decision of the tribunal final or conclusive, we hold that sub-section (1) of Section 245S of the Act, insofar as, it makes the advance ruling of the Authority binding on the applicant, in respect of the transaction and on the Commissioner and income-tax authorities subordinate to him, does not bar the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution or the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to the advance ruling of the Authority.” In our view, therefore, the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate can be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by any aggrieved party and if such a challenge is made, the High Court can examine the decision of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, in accordance with the settled principles of law.
23. We may next consider whether a lessee has any remedy by way of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act when the secured creditor attempts to take over possession of the secured asset which is in possession of the lessee. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act are extracted hereinbelow:
“17. Right to appeal.--(1) Any person ............... under sub-section (4) of section 13.”
24. When we read sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, we find that under the said sub-section “any person (including borrower)”, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under the Chapter, may apply to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measures had been taken. We agree with the Mr. Vikas Singh that the words ‘any person’ are wide enough to include a lessee also. It is also possible to take a view that within 45 days from the date on which a possession notice is delivered or affixed or published under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, a lessee may file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter for restoration of possession in case he is dispossessed of the secured asset. But when we read subsection (3) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, we find that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has powers to restore possession of the secured asset to the borrower only and not to any person such as a lessee. Hence, even if the Debt Recovery Tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot restore possession of the secured asset to the lessee. Where, therefore, the Debts Recovery Tribunal considers the application of the lessee and comes to the conclusion that the lease in favour of the lessee was made prior to the creation of mortgage or the lease though made after the creation of mortgage is in accordance with the requirements of Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and the lease was valid and binding on the mortgagee and the lease is yet to be determined, the Debts Recovery Tribunal will not have the power to restore possession of the secured asset to the lessee. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to the lessee to protect his lawful possession under a valid lease.
25. 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 by nonadjudicatory process 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 Act considered. In our 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 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 ..........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:
28. Having expressed our opinion on the different questions of law raised in these appeals, we may now pass orders and directions considering the broad facts of the three different categories of the case before us:
(i) In Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.9426 of 2012, 9170 of 2012, 9163 of 2012, 9253 of 2012, 9164 of 2012, 9160 of 2012, 379 of 2013, 1467 of 2013, 1782 of 2013, 3575 of 2013, 4062 of 2012, 4063 of 2012, 4053 of 2012, 4068 of 2012, 4119 of 2012, 4129 of 2012, 7835 of 2013, 8365 of 2013, 9217 of 2013, 10346 of 2013, 6587 of 2012, 6639 of 2012, 6523 of 2012, 6622 of 2012, 7731 of 2012, 7747 of 2012 and 4618 of 2012, the appellants claim that they are in possession of the secured asset under a lease made prior to the mortgage but the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, has passed orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for delivery of possession of the secured asset to the respective secured creditors. These orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to pass fresh orders in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the secured creditors.
(ii) In Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.4064 of 2012, 4117 of 2012, 4114 of 2012, 4124 of 2012, 4052 of 2012, 4058 of 2012, 4061 of 2012, 4057 of 2012, 4620 of 2012, 6612 of 2012, 7722 of 2012, 7744 of 2012, 7749 of 2012, 7743 of 2012, 4130 of 2012 and 4125 of 2012 when the appellants filed the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the applications of the secured creditors under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were pending. In case the applications are still pending, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will consider the claims of the appellants that they were in possession of the secured asset under a lease made prior to the creation of the mortgage and decide the applications under Section 14 in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant. In case, during the pendency of these appeals, orders have been passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the orders so passed will stand quashed and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate will pass fresh orders in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the secured creditors.
(iii) In the Criminal Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.4619 of 2012, 6598 of 2012, 6522 of 2012, 7745 of 2012, 7746 of 2012 and 4120 of 2012, when the Special Leave Petitions were filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, no application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been filed by the secured creditors. In case such application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has been filed in the meanwhile or is filed in future, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will decide the applications in accordance with this judgment and any other law that may be relevant after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants and the secured creditors.
(iv) In all these appeals, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, will pass final orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act within four months from the date of filing of certified copy of this judgment by either the lessee/tenant or the secured creditor.
(v) With the aforesaid directions and orders, the appeals are allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
.……………………….J.
(A. K. Patnaik)
………………………..J.
(V. Gopala Gowda)
New Delhi,
April 03, 2014.
Comments
Post a Comment