SARFAESI-affected tenants must seek relief before the DRT, not through writ petitions.

The petitioners claimed through predecessors who had been tenants of the property since 1980.

The property was later transferred to Heena Ali, who created an equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent Bank in 2011.

After default, the Bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings.

The petitioners filed eight civil suits and obtained interim status quo orders concerning possession; they then sought a writ directing the Bank to comply with those orders.

The Bank objected that the writ was an attempt to stall recovery proceedings, that the petitioners had an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), and that the civil court’s jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.

It also produced a sale-intimation letter indicating that the property had been sold by e-auction.

The petitioners relied on their asserted tenancy rights, but produced no registered instrument supporting a tenancy for more than one year.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides remedies for a party seeking implementation of, or redress for breach of, an interim order.

Under Sections 13(4), 14 and 17 of the SARFAESI Act, a person aggrieved by a secured creditor’s measures, including a tenant, may seek relief before the DRT; Section 34 bars civil-court jurisdiction over matters the DRT or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine and prohibits injunctions against action under the Act.

PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank (2024) 6 SCC 579 reiterates that writ jurisdiction ordinarily should not be used to interdict recovery proceedings where an efficacious statutory remedy is available.

Under Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India (2019) 9 SCC 94, a valid tenancy predating the mortgage may protect a tenant from disturbance through SARFAESI measures, but a claim to possession for more than one year must be supported by a registered instrument.

An order made without subject-matter jurisdiction may be a nullity, as explained in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 791.

The possible effect of Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 on the petitioners’ asserted derivative tenancy was left for consideration in an appropriate proceeding.

The Court treated the petition as one seeking to stall or obstruct the secured creditor’s recovery proceedings and held that the petitioners had an efficacious remedy before the DRT under Section 17, making writ intervention inappropriate.

It also noted the serious question whether the civil court could grant relief concerning measures within the SARFAESI framework, given Section 34 and the principle that an order made without subject-matter jurisdiction is a nullity.

Although the mortgage schedule recorded three tenants at the time of the mortgage, the petitioners did not produce a registered instrument supporting their claimed tenancy for more than one year.

The Court therefore did not treat their asserted tenancy as established; questions about their derivative rights, including the effect of Section 2(g) of the State tenancy statute, were left open for an appropriate proceeding.

It clarified that dismissal did not preclude the petitioners from approaching the appropriate forum in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs.