Bombay High Court
Pawan Hiralal Poddar vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 2 August, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
920-WP-8822-2017.DOC
Jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8822 OF 2017
1. Pawant Hiralal Poddar
Adult, Indian Inhabitat,
Age 50, Occ. Business,
Raj Rajeshwari Compound, Survey No. ...Petitioner
196-H/2/3, Sonale, Village Bhiwandi,
Thane 421 302
Versus
1. State Bank of India
Office at Stress Asset Management
Branch, The Arcade, Second Floor, World
Trade Centre, Cuff Pared, Mumbai 400
005.
2. The District Magistrate
Thane.
3. The Tahasildar
Bhiwandi, Thane.
4. Rambo Fashion Ltd.
107-3A, Rahul Industrial Estate, Sakinaka,
Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059. ...Respondents
Mr. Himanshu Luthra, i/b Kiran Gaikwad, Adv. for Petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Singh, with Mr. Arsh Misra, i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED: 2nd August 2017.
J U D G M E N T :- (Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.)
920-WP-8822-2017.DOC
1. The Petitioner in the present Petition is challenging an
order dated 9th February 2017 passed by the District
Magistrate, Thane allowing of an application of Respondent
No.1 under Section 14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as
"SARFAESI Act").
2. The Petitioner has claimed to be a tenant in respect of
the subject property, since the year 2000. A Suit was filed the
Petitioner before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwandi,
Thane for a declaration that the Petitioner is a tenant in
respect of the subject property. In proceedings initiated before
the District Magistrate, an intervention application was filed
by the Petitioner. The District Magistrate, Thane by impugned
order dated 9th February 2017 allowed the Section 14
application and ordered the taking of possession of the
subject property. The Petitioner being aggrieved has filed the
present Petition.
920-WP-8822-2017.DOC
3. Shri Himanshu Luthra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is a tenant in
respect of the subject property and that the impugned order is
not binding on the Petitioner. Shri Luthra has further
contended that the Petitioner has filed a Suit before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Bhiwandi, Thane, which is pending
and till then no steps should be taken by Respondent No.1
pursuant to the impugned order. Shri Luthra has further
submitted that the impugned order has been passed behind
the back of the Petitioner and hence is illegal, unlawful and
be quashed.
4. Shri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1 has submitted that although the Petitioner has filed Suit
No. 239 of 2016 before the Civil Judge, S.D., Bhiwandi,
Thane, the impugned order passed by the District
Magistrate, Thane has not been stayed. Shri Singh has
submitted that the Petitioner is not a tenant and this is a case
of bogus tenancy claimed by the Petitioner attempting to
thwart the recovery proceedings of Respondent No.1 for
possession of the subject property. Shri Singh has further
920-WP-8822-2017.DOC
submitted that Respondent No.4 is the borrower from
Respondent No.1 and that Respondent No.1 has adopted the
appropriate proceedings for recovery of its dues including for
possession of the subject property belonging to Respondent
No.4. Shri Singh has accordingly contended that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order dated 9th February 2017.
5. We are of the considered view that although the
Petitioner has claimed tenancy in respect of the subject
property, there is no order which has been passed for stay of
the recovery proceedings including that of the impugned
order dated 9th February 2017 passed by the District
Magistrate, Thane. We are also of the considered view that
only in the event that the Petitioner is declared a tenant can
be challenge the impugned order.
6. We accordingly dismiss the present Petition. There
shall be no order as to costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
