AMIT MOHAN BHATIA Vs. MARATHA SAHKARI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Devlekar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1-Bank, and Mr. Alaspurkar, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.4-State.

(2.) By this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 9th February 2018 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, below "Exhibit-9" in Case No.72/SA/2017.

(3.) The application at "Exhibit-9" was filed by the present Petitioner in his capacity as an 'Intervenor', claiming himself to be a 'tenant' in the Secured Assets. It was contended by him that, as per the 'Agreement of Tenancy' dated 30th March 2000, he is a bonafide tenant of the attached property. In this respect, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the Petitioner on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishal N. Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and Ors., (2016) 3 SCC 762, to submit that, the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed or evicted from the attached property, without following the due procedure of law.