Delhi High Court
Rajesh Sharma And Anr. vs Punjab National Bank And Anr. on 14 December, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 14th December, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 13534/2018, CM Nos. 52747-52748/2018
RAJESH SHARMA AND ANR.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Karan Mehta, Mr. Akhil Sharma
& Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Advs.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Adv. with
Mr. Suhil Dalal, Adv. for R-1/PNB
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. with Mr.
Hem Sabharwal, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 52748/2018 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13534/2018
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging
the order dated December 10, 2018 passed by the DRAT, rejecting
the appeal filed by the petitioners herein.
2. The petitioners herein claims themselves to be the tenants in
respect of two floors of Property No.167, Pocket F-24, Sector-7,
Rohini, New Delhi. It is their case that they have become the
tenants of the respondent No.2 Nakul Chand, who is the borrower of
the respondent No.1 Bank and from whom the respondent No.1
Bank has to recover an amount of `20 Crores odd. As the
respondent No.2 has not paid the Bank's dues, the Bank has taken
steps for possession of the property. The petitioners herein
approached the DRT in an application under Section 17(1) of the
SARFAESI Act. An interim relief against dispossession by
respondent No.1 Bank was prayed for. However, the DRT vide its
order dated November 19, 2018 declined the relief to the petitioners
as they have failed to place on record any proof of their tenancy in
respect of two floors of the property in question.
3. It is the case of the petitioners herein that the tenancy is
from August, 2016 till August, 2025 at a monthly rent of `12,550/-
per month with an escalation clause of 15% every three years.
However, there was no written Lease Agreement executed in
August, 2016 and it was only in April, 2018 they claim that they got
the Lease Deed executed.
4. The petitioners before the Tribunal, sought time for vacating
the two floors by December, 2019, which relief in fact was claimed
in a Civil Suit between the petitioners and the landlord i.e
respondent No.2, even the learned Civil Judge has granted them. In
fact, it appears they also requested that they may be allowed to
vacate the premises by April, 2019.
5. The DRAT rejected the appeal by holding as under:-
"From the submissions having been made before the
DRT, it becomes clear that the appellants knew that they
have no, prima facie, case in their favour for grant of any
interim relief and that is why instead of urging before the
DRT that they had a strong case that they could not be
dispossessed by the respondent No.1 bank from the
tenanted premises, they chose not to press into service
any such arguments before the DRT. If the learned DRT
has refused to grant time till April 2019 to the appellants
to vacate the mortgaged property of respondent No.1, I
do not find any illegality having been committed by the
DRT justifying any interference by this Appellate
Tribunal."
6. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
had made a similar prayer i.e the petitioners be allowed to continue
till March, 2019. We are unable to accept such a prayer when an
amount of `20 Crores is due and payable by the respondent No.2
being the guarantor. Any delay in the Bank proceeding with the
property would not be in public interest.
7. We do not see any reason to accept the only submission
made by Mr. Kirti Uppal for allowing the petitioners in the property
till March, 2019. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
CM No. 52747/2018 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 14, 2018/ak
