KAUSHAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought a declaration that the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), and an order quashing the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16th April, 2013 under section 14 of the said Act. The petitioner has also sought an order quashing a notice dated 15th May, 2013, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Mumbai.

(2.) The question that falls for consideration is whether an application is sustainable under section 17 of the Act against any action taken by a secured creditor under section 14 of the Act prior to possession being taken pursuant to an order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under section 14. In other words, can an application lie under section 17 only after possession is taken pursuant to an order under section 14.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be a tenant of respondent No.2 under an agreement of tenancy dated 20th March, 2002. The opening part of the agreement states that it is a leave and licence agreement. Clause 1 of the operative part of the agreement, however, states that the premises had been let out to the petitioner as a monthly tenant.