NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) Both the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order being identical and arising out of the same application under Sections 18 and 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 pending between the same parties.
(2.) The Writ Petition No. 16965/2017 has been preferred by the petitioner - bank against impugned Order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner vide which the interim order granting status quo in favour of the respondent No. 1, the alleged tenant, was passed, whereas, the Writ Petition No. 654/2018 has been preferred against the Order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner dismissing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner - bank.
(3.) The facts in short are that the petitioner - I.C.I.C.I. Bank is a Banking Financial Institution registered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1954. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - borrowers approached the petitioner - bank for obtaining the financial assistance and availed the loan facility of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, which was to be repaid by them in equated monthly installments along with applicable interest. For the purpose of repayment of the said loan amount, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - borrowers mortgaged their certain immoveable properties including the house in dispute situated in the city of Bikaner as mentioned in the loan documents. On account of non-payment of monthly installments in the said loan account, the petitioner - bank declared the loan account of the respondents as N.P.A. in the year 2015 and when the respondents - borrowers failed to repay the said loan, the petitioner - bank initiated the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act' hereinafter) against the respondents - borrowers and got served the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act upon them. In spite of service of the said notice, the respondents - borrowers failed to repay the loan amount. Accordingly, the petitioner - bank moved an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Collector, Bikaner and while giving out the details of the immoveable properties mortgaged by the respondents - borrowers with the petitioner - bank requested that the possession of the said mortgaged property be taken over from the respondents - borrowers and handed over to the petitioner - bank. The District Collector, Bikaner vide Order dated 19.07.2017 allowed the application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and directed the taking over of the physical possession of the house in question with the help of police. After passing the said order, the respondent No. 1, the alleged tenant, moved an application under Sections 18 and 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Rent Act of 2001' hereinafter) against the petitioner - bank as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the Rent Tribunal, Bikaner on 04.08.2017 pleading therein that he took the disputed premises on rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 01.04.2009 and since then, he along with his family is residing therein. Initially, the tenancy was started from the rent of Rs. 800/- per month and thereafter, it was increased to Rs. 1,000/- per month. In addition to the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, the liability to pay the electricity charges was on him. There is landlord and tenant relationship between him and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He is regularly making payment of monthly rent to the landlord and therefore, it was pleaded that the petitioner - bank cannot dispossess him under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as the provisions of the SARFAESI Act did not override the provisions of the Rent Act of 2001. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and others reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 762.;