HINDUSTAN POLYMERS Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 24.04.2018, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT' for short) whereby the DRAT has directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs.2,10,00,000/- with the Registrar of the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks failing which the appeal would stand automatically dismissed without reference to the Board.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and a tenant in possession of the schedule property, namely Plot No.77, I, J, K & L Hootagalli Industrial Area, Mysuru. The petitioner claims that it was inducted into the tenancy even before a mortgage was created in favour of Bank of Baroda, the respondent No.1. The premises were rented to the petitioner by lease deed dated 01.12.2010, and was further extended by lease deed dated 28.05.2014. Moreover, the respondent No.2 had borrowed certain amount from the bank. However, as respondent No.2 had failed to repay the loan amount, proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the Act' for short), for recovery of the money was initiated by the bank against the respondent No.2. Consequently, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act were issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were representing respondent No.2. The petitioner further claims that during the proceedings under the Act, the petitioner continued to be in possession of the suit property. The petitioner further claims that the bank had initiated proceedings under Section 14 of the Act without disclosing the proper parties or the particulars of the tenants in possession as required by law. By order dated 19.06.2017, the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru passed an order for taking possession of the property as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act. Consequently, the bank, respondent No.1, had approached the Tahsildar on 18.11.2017, with a request to implement the order passed by the District Magistrate.

(3.) Mr. M. R. Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that Section 2(f) of the Act clearly defines the word "borrower". Section 18 creates a statutory right to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against any order made by the DRT. The second proviso which imposes a liability of a pre-deposit is confined only to the "borrower" who is challenging the order passed by the DRT. However, as the petitioner happens to be merely a tenant, it does not fall within the definition of the word "borrower". Therefore, the liability to make a pre-deposit cannot be imposed upon the petitioner by the DRAT.