RAJESH PANDEY vs EDELWEISS ASSEST RECONSTRUCTION CO LTD on 28 September 2026

1. 1. The appellant filed S.A. bearing no.226/2024 titled as **Rajesh Pandey and others V Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others** which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi.

2. 2. The appellant in original S.A. stated that the appellant's mother was a tenant under Sumitra through oral agreement against pagri amount of Rs.17,000/- and monthly rent was paid Rs.200/- excluding electricity and water charges. Ramji Lal was the owner of the entire property vide sale deed dated 05.10.1959 and Ramji Lal executed a will whereby the subject property bearing no.Shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no.H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92, was given Sumitra. The appellant is claiming to be the tenant in respect of property bearing Shop no.5, H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi under Sumitra Devi.

3. 3. The appellant also received a notice of the eviction petition titled as **Neeraj Gupta V Manish Sharma** in eviction petitions under section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 but there was no relationship of landlord and the tenant between the appellant and Neeraj Gupta. The subsequent litigation was also initiated in respect of the subject property. The appellant is claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by CMM and in pursuance of the said order, the court receiver issued a notice dated 26.04.2024 for taking possession of the subject property bearing H-34, Vijay Chowk, Khureji Khas, Laxmi Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110092 on 28.05.2024. The appellant being aggrieved filed the present S.A. bearing no.226/2024.

4. The appellant also prayed for restraining the respondent no.1/court receiver for taking physical possession of the subject property on 28.05.2024 particularly the Shop No.5, H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi under his possession as tenant.

5. The respondent no.1 before DRT-I, Delhi has opposed the grant of interim relief on the ground that the loan facility was granted to the borrower/mortgagor/guarantor on 30.03.2019 and the appellant is claiming his right as tenant on the basis of certain rent receipts and lastly it was executed in the year 2011-12.

6. It was prayed that the interim relief be rejected. DRT-I, Delhi vide impugned order dated 28.05.2024 observed that the respondent no.1 is having better charge over the subject property and the rent received on the basis of which the appellant is claiming his right, has already been expired in the year 2011-12. It was ultimately observed that no *prima facie* case is made out in favour of the appellant. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 is reproduced as under:

6. In the present matter, both the applicant as well as respondent FI are claiming their respective charge over the property in question and the applicant is claiming as the tenant in the property in question since the year 1985 only on the basis of certain rent receipts and lastly was executed in the year 2011-2012, whereas the respondent FI is claiming that the property in question was mortgaged with them on 30.03.2019 by their borrowers/mortgagors against the sanction of the loan facility. However, the applicant has also placed on record the copies of challan deposited by the applicant with the Controller, East District Delhi, but that does not prove the tenancy of the applicant. Further, the applicant has also relied upon certain orders dated 31.07.2018, 24.07.2018 passed by the civil court and the judgement dated 19.02.2019 passed by the Ld. District & Session Judge, Delhi, but this orders/judgement also does not prove that the applicant is bona fide tenant in the property in question. Even otherwise, the original lessor/owner has already sold the entire property in question to some other person. Apparently, there is default on the part of the borrower/guarantor/ mortgagor in paying the dues of the respondent FI and as per the respondent FI, notices under Section 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act have been duly served upon the borrower/mortgagor/ guarantor and after declaration of the account as NPA, the borrower has not cleared the dues of the respondent FI till date.

7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the *prima facie* view that the respondent FI is having better charge over the property in question, whereas the applicant is claiming their tenancy on the basis aforesaid some rent receipts and the same has already been expired in the year 2011-2012 and thereafter no rent agreement etc. was executed in their favour. Even otherwise, the applicant has also failed to file any latest registered rent agreement with respect to property in question. Thus, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant and balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the applicant for granting interim relief. Rather, the respondent FI of course would suffer irreparable loss in case the interim relief is being granted in favour of the S. applicant as the respondent FI has to recover amount of more than Rs.1.71 crores in the present account as per the demand notice dated 20.12.2021. Accordingly, the prayer of the applicants for restraining the respondent FI / court receiver from taking physical possession of the property in question, which is fixed for 28.05.2024, stands rejected. All other issues shall be decided after filling reply, rejoinder and evidences by the parties.

7. Sh. Siddhartha Chopra, Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant is lawful tenant in respect of the shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi since 1985. The counsel for the appellant during the course of argument also referred the order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8644/2024 where the parties including the respondent no.1 was directed to maintain the status quo in respect of the possession of shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi which was granted till the matter was listed before DRAT on 11.07.2024. It was further argued that the appellant is a lawful tenant in respect of the shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and is protected by Delhi Rent Control Act and cannot be evicted in pursuance of impugned possession notice dated 28.05.2024. It is prayed that the possession of the appellant in respect of shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi is protected till the disposal of S.A. bearing no.226/2024.

8. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has referred the Gift deed dated 14.03.2019 stated to have been executed by the respondent no.4 in favour of respondent no.3 who was the borrower of the loan and Laxmi Narayan Gupta, has mortgaged the property in favour of respondent no.1.

9. The appellant is claiming his valuable right in respect of shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi on the basis of the tenancy stated to have been created by Sumitra. The appellant is claiming to be in the loan possession of the shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

10. The present petition is disposed of with the direction to DRT-I, Delhi to decide the S.A. bearing no.205/2024 on or before 31.03.2027 and till then the respondent no.1 is directed to maintain *status quo* regarding the possession of the shop no.5 forming part of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. However, the respondent no.1 shall be at liberty to take possession of the rest of the portion of the property bearing no. H-34, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi except Shop no.5 and Shops No. 3 and 4 which are subject matter of appeals bearing Misc. Appeal No. 207/2024 and Misc. Appeal No. 207/2024 and have been decided today through the same court receiver.

11. It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the contesting shall remain opened before the DRT-I, Delhi.

\_\_\_\_\_ **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** Chairperson

-v§