M T V NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
LAWS(DR)-2005-5-11
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 31,2005

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.J.Paratwar, - (1.) THIS Securitisation Appeal (S.A.) under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SRFAESI Act') pertains to Flat No. 23, Second Floor, Chitrakoot Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Altamount Road, Mumbai-400026 owned by respondent No. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the respondent No. 1's taking on 18.10.2004 symbolic possession under Section 13(4) of SRFAESI Act of the aforesaid flat. The respondent No. 1-secured creditor took possession on the Borrower's (respondent No. 2) failure to pay Rs. 531.48 crore as demanded by the Bank's notice dated 19.2.2003 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act.
(2.) The grounds on which Appeal is filed are that the appellant is in occupation of the flat under Leave and Licence Agreement dated 26.2.2001 (registered on 5.11.2004) on monthly compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The housing society had given no objection by letter dated 18.2.2001 for the Leave and Licence Agreement under said Leave and Licence Agreement for 22 months, the appellant had given security deposit of Rs. 1.25 crore. The agreement had a renewal clause for 11 months which also ended on 30.11.2003. Under the agreement, the respondent No. 2 had agreed to refund the aforesaid security deposit amount failing which the appellant was not only entitled to continue its occupation but also was entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. on the security deposit amount. The appellant has contended that it was and is always ready to vacate the subject to its getting back the security deposit amount. Since, however, the respondent No. 2 has not given back and is not returning the security deposit amount, the appellant is entitled to continue possession, says it.
(3.) VIDE reply in the nature of affidavit of Mr. Jayant Kakodkar (Exh. 12) the respondent has resisted the appellant's claim by claiming to be Mortgagee of the flat. Its case is that the mortgage is anterior in point of time (17.1.2001). In any case, the Leave and Licence Agreement has stood terminated by efflux of time. Even otherwise, no interest or even obligation qua the property was created by the Leave and Licence Agreement. The appellant's entitlement to the refund of security deposit is personal against respondent No. 2 and is not annexed to the property. The Appeal is sought to be dismissed on these grounds.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.