- (1.) Petitioner claims to be a tenant of private respondent Nos. 5 to 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that because of nonpayment of certain loan taken by the landlord/s respondent Nos. 5 to 8 a proceedings was initiated by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called as the 'Act, 2002') in respect of the mortgaged property and it approached the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the said Act to secure and confirm the possession of the property in question. The petitioner claims to be a statutory tenant of that property since 1981 under The Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter called as the 'Act, 1972'(. He wants to say that he does not want to stand in the way of taking symbolic possession as per law but before taking physical possession of the property of the owner, his right is required to be determined.
(2.) According to us, if petitioner is a statutory tenant, remedy is available under the Act, 1972 itself but a conflicting situation has arisen here whether the right under such Act can help the petitioner to override the provisions of the Act, 2002 or not. To that extent we have considered two Division Bench judgments. One is of Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products Rep. By its Partner v. State Bank of India, 2007 AIR(Mad) 148 and the second is of ours High Court in Writ. C. No. 39579 of 2010 (Bhagwat Prasad Gupta v. State Bank of India and Others) where it has been held that the tenant's right, if any, under the local law will be overridden by the Act, 2002. That apart, our own view is that tenant's right is flowing from the right of the landlord. Therefore, if landlord's right is challengeable, tenants will have to suffer. Tenant's right is subject to the right of the landlord.
(3.) Now the question arose whether the tenant is remedy less or not. Both the Division Benches have held that petitioner-tenant cannot be debarred from getting an opportunity of hearing of his case under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.;