Court dismisses tenant's plea for protection from eviction

A plea of a tenant seeking protection from being evicted from a house which was being claimed for possession by a bank after its owner failed to pay off debt, has been dismissed by a city court which said it was their attempt to thwart the bank's "valid claim".
The court, while rejecting the application of tenant Gaurav Gupta, said it was "misuse of process of law and such frivolous litigations must be dealt with sternly and nipped in the bud itself" and slapped a cost of Rs 50,000 on him.
"I am of the considered view that the present objection application is nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and is an attempt by the respondent/borrower in collusion with the applicant to thwart the valid claim of the bank to claim the possession of the secured asset when borrower admittedly had failed in paying off the debt," Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Satish Kumar Arora said.

The court while dismissing his plea also noted that Gupta had not filed on record any document showing his possession of the property in any manner.
"The first and the foremost reason is to be found in the objection application itself as except notarised copy of rent agreement dated August 28, 2013, applicant had not filed on record any document showing his possession of the secured asset in any manner whatsoever.
The court also said the owner of property needed consent

of the bank while renting out the accommodation.
"The borrower was prevented in creating any lease in favour of any person without the written consent of the bank. Thus, the alleged rent agreement does not give any protection of whatsoever nature to the applicant/objector in the present petition," it said.

According to the application, Gupta was occupying a rented property consisting of basement floor in Kailash Colony of south Delhi which was owned by Rajesh Chhabra.
The applicant claimed his tenancy by way of a rent agreement dated August 28, 2013 executed between him and the owner and said he was shocked to know that Indian Overseas Bank was trying to take possession of the property.
The bank had filed an application under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act against Chhabra on the basis of some default by him.
Gupta sought that he should not be evicted from the premises and said he was willing to deposit the future monthly rent in respect of the property in question with the bank.

The bank, on the other hand, had contended that Gupta's application was an abuse of the law and a tedious attempt on the part of the borrowers in collusion with the applicant to prevent the bank from taking possession of the secured asset.