A Tribunal vacancy may justify conditional interim protection when statutory relief is unavailable.

The appellant defaulted on a housing loan after his transport business was affected during the Covid-19 lockdown and he incurred substantial medical expenses.

The lender initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and took possession of the appellant’s residence.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed him to deposit 10% of the amount due and directed the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, to consider his interim-relief application without coercive action in the meantime; the appellant deposited Rs. 1,16,000.

He then filed S.A. No. 599/2026, but the DRT could not hear it because the Presiding Officer’s post was vacant.

The appellant’s subsequent writ petition seeking interim relief was dismissed, prompting this appeal.

Whether the appellant was entitled to interim protection while his application before the DRT remained unheard because the Tribunal lacked a Presiding Officer.

Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without addressing the practical difficulty caused by the Tribunal’s non-functioning and the appellant’s circumstances.

The Court considered the statutory remedy before the DRT under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and applied the principle that a litigant should not suffer because a forum established by law is temporarily unavailable.

It also exercised equitable discretion to grant interim protection on the exceptional facts of the case, subject to conditions and without treating the order as a precedent.

The appellant had complied with the earlier deposit direction, but his DRT application for interim relief remained pending through no fault of his own because the Tribunal had no Presiding Officer.

The Court held that the resulting lack of an effective forum, together with the appellant’s exceptional personal and medical circumstances, warranted temporary protection.

It found that the Single Judge had not adequately considered those difficulties and therefore granted possession subject to the appellant’s undertaking and the DRT’s eventual decision.

The Bank was directed to open the lock and restore possession of the premises to the appellant, provided he filed an undertaking within three working days.

The undertaking must state that if the DRT declines interim relief, the High Court’s protection will automatically lapse and the appellant will promptly return vacant possession to the Bank.

The DRT was expected to decide the pending interim applications in accordance with law as soon as it became functional; the order was expressly limited to the exceptional facts of this case.