Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has claimed tenancy rights in respect of an immoveable property. The petitioner has contended that, the petitioner as a tenant cannot be ousted from possession through the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had filed a title suit for declaration and injunction. The Bank is one of the party defendants in such suit. The Bank is contesting such suit. In such title suit, the petitioner had applied for an interim order of injunction. Upon such interim order of injunction being refused, the petitioner had preferred an appeal therefrom. The Appeal Court disposed of such appeal by a judgment and order dated September 12, 2012. While disposing of the appeal, the Division Bench did not enter into the merits of the claim and counter-claim of the parties. It had held that it was open to the learned Trial Judge to consider the issues raised in the suit, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by his order and the order of the Division Bench while disposing of the application for injunction. According to him, the claim of the petitioner that she is a tenant at the suit premises, is yet to be decided. The Division Bench has directed that, the petitioner should not be evicted from the suit premises except in due process of law. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, does not override the provisions of the tenancy laws. Till such time a decision is not arrived at in such suit, the Bank cannot evict the petitioner through the Act of 2002. The Bank did not file any suit for eviction. The petitioner is protected by the order of the Division Bench. The Division Bench having granted the protection to the petitioner that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in due process of law and the Act of 2002 not overriding any tenancy laws, the petitioner is entitled to the protection under the tenancy laws. The petitioner cannot be evicted under the Act of 2002. In support of such contention, he has relied upon (Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India & Ors., 2016 3 SCC 762) and (Indian Bank v. Nippon Enterprises South & Ors., 2016 15 SCC 79).
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon (Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 1990 3 SCC 223) in support of the contention that, the action taken by the District Magistrate stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not heard by the District Magistrate. Had the District Magistrate been made aware of the pendency of the title suit the District Magistrate may not have passed such an order. It is not for the Court to substitute the orders passed by the District Magistrate after reprisal of the materials.;