1. It appears you are the tenant of the house and f tat is so then there is no way you could have stopped the andlord from taking loan against the same house.

2. However being a tenant of the house you have some protection agaisnt automatic eviction from this house even if there is an order of attachment upon this property.

3. SO go to the DRT and file a petition for injunction showing your rights as tenant .

4. Your right to stay there till the expiry of the lease is secured and till that time you can not be evicted.

File an intervenor application in court where case is pending 

seek orders that you may be permitted to stay in premises till expiry of lease agreement 

I presume you have registered lease agreement 

Lease deed is required to be registered to be admissible in evidence 

consult a local lawyer 

If the court has ordered eviction then you need to approach court or bank to seek extension till June. If they grant then you can stay

See,  the property leased to you had already been mortgaged by the landlord with the bank before your lease.  Now there is default in loan and bank has to take the possession. Bank claim is prior to your lease.  However, you may file an application in DRT seeking time and make the payment of rent to the bank hereafter.

Whether the lease deed is executed before or after the loan executed in favour of land lord? I suggest to file a impleading application and obtain a stay as a urgent relief. 

See the lease has to be registered since you have not registered same you are not aware of charge created by the bank. See you have to file complainant and suit to recover the amount from owner as after the court order the bank may take possession of the property. Also to stretch some time you may contest same before DRT showing your lease and tenancy rights. 

There is judgement wherein if the right of tenant and owner is established even if not registered court may consider same. 

There is judgement wherein if the right of tenant and owner is established even if not registered court may consider same. 

Manager is boasting, no court will pass such order in such limited time and 6 months will pass just like. Ignore the manager and don`t vacate and leave the possession. further don`t entertain any bank employee.

If you have not been informed by LL of default in loan and possibility of possession and auction by bank, builder committed cheating on you. You also fie FIR against landlord. 

But this is no excuse to defend your lease that you was not know about mortgage and loan default.

Non register lease deed enforceable in court.

Dear Sir,

The bank has first charge as such you have to go to the Court to claim your amount. If the house sold above the dues of bank then court will consider your request. You cannot stay in the said premises unless you get a stay from the court/Debt Recovery Tribunal. Yours lease is not registered so invalid.

You can File an intervention application.

You may assert an intervention "as of right" or request a permissive intervention. If you claim intervention as of right, you must show that you have a direct interest in the dispute from which the case arises, and the only way to protect your interest is to become involved in the lawsuit.

if the Magistrate passes an order in favor of the financial institution directing it to take over the physical possession of the building to recover the outstanding loan amount, the tenants of the premises, who were oblivious to all the legal battles between the landlord and the financial institution, would suffer immeasurably. The only option left to the tenant/lessee would be to approach the higher courts to remedy the situation.

In the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd and Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate would have to give notice and an opportunity of hearing to the person claiming to be the lessee of a secured creditor thereby following the Principles of Natural Justice. The Supreme Court also observed that only after examining the legitimacy of the lease/tenancy must the Magistrate pass the order in such cases.

In Sanjivkumar Surajprakash Aggarwal v. State Bank of India and Ors., (2016) 14 SCC 532, the Supreme Court directed that the Magistrate was to conduct an enquiry under Section 14 of the Act involving the Appellant in that case, the tenants, and that it would be fit and fair to adjudicate based on the Principles of Natural Justice.

Some of the aggrieved tenants/lessees in Karnataka approached the High Court where a similar situation had arisen. In the case of M/s Remco Software Pvt Ltd and Ors. v. HDB Financial Services Ltd and Ors., WP No 35597-601/2017 and 35602-604/2017, decided by a Single Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari, J., the above-mentioned precedents were relied upon and a judgment was passed in favor of the tenant reiterating their rights. 

The Court made interesting observations and laid down precedents which are of high significance for those practicing in the courts of Karnataka -

1. Notice to a tenant is a must

While exercising power under Section 14 of the Act, the learned Magistrate has erred in saying that a  ‘notice need not be issued to the tenants’ and that Section 14 does not exclude the compliance of principles of Natural Justice.

1. Confirm the validity of lease/tenancy

The Court went on to also state a disclaimer of sorts, by saying that it also becomes apparent to examine if it is a valid lease/tenancy and if it was created before or after the creation of mortgage. Stating further, that the tenants cannot be evicted directly without DRT expressing its opinion about the bona fides of such tenancy.

1. Tenants have the right to be heard

Justice Kothari had rightly relied upon the judicial precedents and stated that the Magistrate must refrain from acting only on the affidavit of the banks but has to consider the rights of the borrowers to controvert the affidavit and that of the tenants of the premises are to be heard.

1. Transfer of tenancy

However, in that event the auction purchasers are the ones who would have to step into the shoes of the landlord and take this due process of law and that the tenant cannot object to such proceedings against the defaulting borrower. It was also opined that the attornment of tenancy in favor of auction purchaser would be automatic under the Act and DRT can direct payment of rental to the bank.

The ratio laid down by the Remco case was followed in a later decision by the same Court in the case of Mahadevaiah v. Karur Vysya Bank and Ors., WP no. 32864/2017, and in a recent decision of Smt. Aravindamma v. Smt. K.S. Jayalakshmammanni, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 530, thereby reiterating the position of law that tenants have a right to approach DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The situation which was ambiguous regarding the status of tenancy has been cleared due to the latest amendment and the clarification by the courts - no more do the tenant has to pay for the dues of the landlord. The clarification and check and balances introduced will be very helpful tenants who are stuck between the tiff of their landlord and the bank.

You are right that the notarization of the lease agreement is not mandatory 

You can approach DRT under section 17 of the act for relief and remedy as explained in my previous post in this connection.

- Firstly , without any further delay , you should issue a demand notice to the Landlord for the refund of the security amount of Rs.9 lakh , after mentioning the facts in details updated by the bank manager , and further warned him that , in the event of non refund within the week time, you will be constrained to file a suit for recovery of the said amount with interest , and to lodging a police complaint . 

- Further, forwarded one copy to the bank as well 

- If , no response from the landlord , then you should file a suit for recovery for getting refund of the security amount , with an application for injunction , to restrained to take possession from you . 

- According to the Registration Act, 1908, lease agreement registration is mandatory ,  if the leasing period is 12 months or more than that. If a rent agreement is registered then it is also mandatory to pay registration fee and stamp duty.

Since, your lease agreement is only for 11 months , then it is not mandatory to register the same.

1. Yes bank can initiate proceedings against property and ask tenants to vacate the premises for purpose of sealing the property under SURFAESI act.

2. You can make appeal in DRT against possession proceedings of bank till lease period is pending. 

Dear Sir,

Bank can't evict tenants of loan defaulters

In a big relief to tenants of a house hypothecated to a bank as collateral security for a loan, the Supreme Court has held that they cannot be evicted by the banks to make good the loan left unpaid by the landlord.

The court further directed the banks to continue to collect enhanced rent agreed to by the tenants and adjust it towards the debts of the landlord.

Protecting the rights of tenants under the Rent Control Act over that of banks under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002, the apex Bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy said, “A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to usurping the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant.”

The court was faced with the complex task of determining which Central Act among the two legislations will have an overriding effect.

On one hand, the court dealt with provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 devised to protect the interest of tenants, whom the court described as belonging to “weaker sections of society”.

Juxtaposed was SARFAESI Act, with Section 35 providing that the Act will override “any other law in force for the time being”.

A bunch of appeals to the court revealed the plight of several tenants who were caught unawares after they were asked by banks to vacate property offered as “collateral security” for a loan on which the debtor/landlord had defaulted. Some tenants approached the trial court and secured a stay against the eviction order. To remedy this situation where contrary orders were passed by courts under separate laws, the banks brought their plea to the apex court.

The Bench stood up for the “blameless tenant” and said, “A landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under the Rent Control Act, more so when the two legislations - the SARFAESI Act and Rent Control Act, operate in completely different fields.”

It further noted, “Tenants would be left wholly at the mercy of their landlords and in the fear that the landlord may use the tenanted premises as a security interest while taking a loan from a bank and subsequently default on it…The provisions of SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act.”

The banks further argued that a rent agreement is no valid document in the eyes of law since it is not a registered document unlike a lease.

The Bench was asked to determine whether rent agreement can be treated as a lease agreement. The Bench concluded by saying: “If regular rent is being paid and accepted, then the mere fact of non-registration of deed will not make the lease itself nugatory.”