Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Proceedings initiated by the respondent -Bank of India for recovery of outstanding dues of M/s. Ellen Breweries and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Others in O.A. Case No. 125 of 2002 vide decree dated 28.02.2006 led to Recovery Proceeding No. 09 of 2006 before the learned Recovery Officer, DRT, Ranchi. The description of properties auctioned are as follows: - - "M.S. Plot No. 1718, Holding No. 1396 (New) Ward No. 1 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation Area, Court Road, Ranchi, Total area -3 Katha. Bounday : East - Portion of M.S. Plot No. 1718 belonging to Sh. A.K. Banerjee & Sh. J. Banerjee, West - Kutchery Road, South -Portion of M.S. Plot No. 1718, North - M.S. Plot No. 1717."
(2.) Entire property described hereinabove on auction fetched total value of Rs. 66,75,000/ -. Dues of the Bank was Rs. 34,10,219/ -. It would not be out of place to mention here that auction was conducted on 28.03.2008 in the premises of DRT, Ranchi on "as is where is basis". Respondent No. 3, M/s. Dilasha Commodities Pvt. Ltd. is the auction purchaser of the property described hereinabove.
(3.) In the background of all these facts, it is pertinent to mention that petitioner herein was a tenant of respondent No. 2, judgment debtor holding tenancy over 15 Katha of land of respondent No. 2 out of which 3 katha of land fall in the property auctioned as described hereinabove. As a tenant, he sought setting aside of the sale of immovable property in terms of Rule 60 of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act as adopted under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by making an offer of deposit. Petitioner, however, faced eviction suit in respect of tenanted premises and decree of eviction has been passed by learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2006 in Eviction Suit No. 06 of 1985 and upheld by the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 55 of 2006 vide judgment dated 20.12.2012. Petitioner has preferred Second Appeal bearing S.A. No. 20 of 2013 pending before this Court and has not yet been evicted of the tenant premises. Second Appeal has not yet been admitted. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that there are no stay over the eviction decree passed against the petitioner. Petitioner's request for setting aside of the sale of immovable property was negated not only by the Recovery Officer, but upheld by the DRT, Ranchi in Appeal No. 03 of 2009 dated 04.05.2011 and by the DRAT, Kolkata in Appeal No. 74 of 2011 dated 04.06.2012, Annexure -5 and 6 respectively. Therefore, petitioner is before this court challenging these impugned orders refusing to set aside the sale of immovable property sold in auction. Auction sale has also been confirmed in favour of the respondent No. 3 and certificate to that effect has also been issued.;