DEVENDER SINGH TAYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been placed before us on the basis of an urgent mentioning.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the learned DRT-III, Delhi, granting him 15 days' time to vacate premises No.A- 72, Inderpuri, New Delhi, and to hand over the peaceful physical possession thereof to the Receiver. The petitioner was also directed to file his affidavit on the same day, undertaking inter alia to vacate the said premises in question within 15 days. It was made clear in the said order that in the event of default, the respondent No.2/Financial Institution shall be at liberty to take over physical possession of the said premises through the Receiver appointed by the learned CMM.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner's son, Mr. Samrendra Tayal had taken a loan of Rs. 4,91,78,000/- from the respondent No.2, towards working capital for his business and in lieu thereof, he had executed a set of documents including Mortgage Deed, Declarations, Receipt, Promissory Note etc. on 03.07.2014. Besides the signatures of Mr. Samrendra Tayal as the borrower, all the said documents also bear the signatures of his wife, Manisha Tayal and his father, the petitioner herein, both described as co-borrowers. It is the version of the petitioner that he was unaware of the aforesaid loan transaction till 25.05.2016, when some employees of the respondent No.2 had visited his residence and demanded payment of the loan amount. The petitioner also received a notice from the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent No.2, calling upon him to appear on 23.06.2016 and on examining the documents served upon him, he claims to have discovered that someone had forged his signatures on the loan documents. On that, the petitioner had tried to search the original title documents of the mortgaged property referred to above, which he had allegedly kept in a box in the house and only then did he discover that they were missing. On confronting his son, Mr.Samrendra Tayal and asking about the whereabouts of the title documents and on not receiving a satisfactory reply, it had dawned on the petitioner that his son had in conspiracy with the officers of the respondent No.2, played a fraud on him and forged his signatures on the Mortgage Loan Agreement, Declarations, Receipt and Promissory Note, all dated 03.07.2014. The petitioner asserts that he had never signed any of the said documents; that no loan was disbursed to him and he had no knowledge of the loan taken by his son from the respondent No.2, till 25.05.2016.