Indian Bank vs M/S Nippon Enterprises South .
- SCC(2016) 15 SCC 79
- Neutral2016 INSC 186
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A bank that has succeeded in SARFAESI proceedings against the owner of secured assets has no automatic right to evict a tenant in occupation of those premises; once a tenancy is created, a tenant can be evicted only by following the due process of law prescribed under the Rent Control Act, and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to circumvent the statutory protections afforded to tenants under rent control legislation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
INDIAN BANK Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S NIPPON ENTERPRISES SOUTH & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. The short issue to be decided in these appeals is whether the appellant, who has been successful in the SARFAESI proceedings against the owner of the secured assets, automatically can have the same say as against the tenant in the premises.
2. That issue has been considered in the various Judgments of this Court and the latest one is in "Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India & Ors." in Crl.
Appeal No. 52 of 2016 decided on 20.01.2016, reported in (2016) 1 SCALE 172 and at paragraph 30, this Court has observed as under :-
"It is a settled position of law that once tenancy is created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the due provisions of the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by 2 using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant......."
3. In view of the above, these appeals are dismissed. However, we make it clear that the dismissal of these appeals shall not stand in the way of the appellant-Bank taking recourse to any remedy under any law for evicting the first respondent.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
February 17, 2016.
3
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 5610-5611/2011 INDIAN BANK Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S NIPPON ENTERPRISES SOUTH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and urging facts, grounds & bringing on record additional documents and permission to place addl. documents on record and office report)
Date : 17/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Munshi, Adv.
Mr. Durga Dutt, Adv.
Mr. Manish Garani, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Parivesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. R. Satish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. M. S. Saran Kumar, Adv.
Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.
Mr. Baljeet S. Rathore, Adv.
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan)
Sr. P.A. Court Master (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free