BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN Vs. SUDARSHAN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Chandigarh and order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from illegally taking possession of two rooms with attached bathroom on the ground floor of the house in question except in due course of law. Plaintiff/petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant in the property vide rent note dated 01.11.2010, followed by another rent agreement dated 01.06.2014. Petitioner pleaded that he was paying the rent regularly from the very inception of the tenancy against receipts to respondent No.1. The plaintiff has been running his office in the demised premises since 01.11.2010. The suit came to be filed when the respondents started threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him in an illegal manner.

(3.) Record of the case would show that a mortgage was created in the year 2012 by the owner in favour of respondent No.2-Bank. The grievance of the petitioner before the Courts below was that in view of Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India and Ors, 2016(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 911, the tenancy was protected because once tenancy was created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the due process of law under the Rent Act. The tenant cannot be evicted forcibly by use of provisions of SARFAESI Act. The suit was filed after the amendment in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, wherein Section 4-A was inserted in Section 17 of 2002 Act w.e.f. 01.09.2016.