GOKINA SIVA BABU vs PRIDHVI ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION AND SECURITIZATION COMPANY LTD on 14 October 2021

ORDER

This AOR is filed by the appellant to set-aside the order passed in I.A. No. 20/2016 in RP No. 120 of 2013 in O.A. 91 of 2008 by the Ld. Recovery Officer in pursuant to order dated 21.03.2021 including to set- aside the e-auction notice dated 29.01.2021 by conducting auction on 18.03.2021 and also permit the appellant to deposit sale price in order to release of "F" schedule properties (Standing in the name of B. Ravindranadh) auctioned on 18.03.2021 by allowing the appeal, to investigate into the matter and adjudicate the claim of the appellant that the appellant having lease hold rights over the schedule properties by virtue of ATC 2/2015 allowed by the Special Officer for Tenancy cases cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram dated 20th October, 2021 in respect of "F" schedule properties (Standing in the name of B. Ravindranadh) auctioned on 18.03.2021 in RP No. 120 of 2013 in OA No. 91 of 2008, to stay of all further proceedings including issuance of sale certificate and registration in favour of the auction purchaser in respect of "F" schedule properties (Standing in the name of B.

Ravindranadh) auctioned on 18.03.2021 in RP No. 120 of 2013 in OA No. 91 of 2008 till the disposal of the appeal. According to the facts of the case in brief stated in the AORthat

2. The appellant is a Tenant and the 3 party to the proceedings initiated by the Learned Recovery officer for realization dues from 2n0 respondent and the 1" respondent is the Certificate Holder, the 2nd respondent is the borrower/land lord. The appellant came to know that proclamation of sale notice was affixed by the 1 respondent on the conspicuous part of the schedule properties in pursuance of e-auction notice dt.05-02- 2016 immediately the appellant moved claim application before the Learned Recovery Officer with a prayer to decare to investigate of the claim in respect of "F" schedule properties standing in the name of BethinaRavindranadh for total an extent of Ac.17.66 mentioned in the impugned notice and decdared that the appellant is lawful and statutory tenant since he is in the possession of the properties and may be permitted to deposit reserve price of Rs.442.00 Lakhs fixed by the authority in order to release of schedule properties as lawful tenant by virtue of ATC 2/2015 passed by the Special officer for Tenancy cases cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram dt.20 October,2021 in

AOR No. 1of 2021 respect of schedule property in favour of appellant on the following grounds. grounds. It is submitted that, without investigate the claim of the appellant and possession and lease hold rights, the Learned Recoveny Officer simply dismissed claim application I.A.No.10 of 2016IN RPNO.120 OF 2013 IN OA.91 OF 2008 without considering document filed by the appellant and the appellant unable to prefer the appeal against the orders of the Recovery officer before this Honourable Tribunal due to Covid-19 and also the appellant could not file the same since no sale held in pursuance of proclamation of sale dt.05-02-2016. It is submitted that, while the matter stood thus, the appellant came to know that the Learned Recovery Officer issued fresh proclamation of sale dt.29-01-2021 by fixing sale on 10-03-2021 and later on, the sale was postponed due to local body elections, and sale held on 18-03-2021 without giving opportunity to the petitioner unilaterally, and the Learned Recovery Officer making preparation to issue sale certificate and register the same in favour of the auction purchaser and without considering the appeal of the appellant prayed in the claim application and without notice and investigate and possession of the schedule property the authority dismissed the claim and proceed for sale. Therefore, the appellant preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Learned :5: AOR No. 1of 2021 Recovery Officer in IA.NO.10/2016 IN RPNO.120 OF 2013 IN OA.91 OF 2008 dt.21-03-2021 including to set-aside the e-auction notice dt.29-01 2021 by conducting auction on 18-03-2021 with a prayer to the Honourable Tribunal to set-aside the order passed in IA.NO.10/2016 IN RPNO.120 OF 2013 IN OA.91 OF 2008 including to set-aside the e- auction notice dt.29-01-2021 by conducting auction on 18-03-2021 and permit the appellant to deposit sale price in order to release of schedule properties and declare that the appellant is a lawful tenant by virtue of ATC No.2/2015 tl such time the Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including confirmation of sale/registration of schedule properties in favour of the auction purchaser in pursuance of proclamation of sale cum -auction notice dt.29-01-2021 by fixed sale and held on 18-03-2021. The appellant is a tenant (Kouludarudu) in respect of "F" Schedule properties mentioned in the proclamation of sale cum-auction notice dt.29-01-2021 by fixed sale and held on 18-03-2021 for total extent of Ac.17.41 cents in S.No.218/1, 218/3, 218/4, 218/5 and 221/1, 221/1A, 222/1 and 222/1A in the year 2000- 2001 on a rent of Rs.1000/- per acre on oral lease between the appellant and 2 respondent. The Hon'ble Tenancy Tribunal considering the said documents and declare the appellant :6 AOR No. 1ef 2021 herein as statutory tenant of BethinaRavindranadh who is the land lord of the aforesaid land. Surprisingly the lower tribunal without considering the aforesaid documents dismissed IA.NO.10/2016 IN RPNO.120 OF 2013 IN OA.91 OF 2008. It is submitted that, the properties are all in agriculture in nature at the time of inception and at the time of entering the land the land is not fit for cultivation and the appellant invested huge amounts on the schedule properties and make it for cultivation and paying the rents to the 20 respondent regularly, but there is no practice in issuing receipt for proof. It is submitted that, while the things stood thus, in the year 2009 at the request of the 2nd respondent and after negotiations, the appellant enhanced the rent from Rs.1000/- to 2000/- per acre. The same was accepted by the 2d respondent and the appellant paying rents regularly. It is submitted that, the appellant has been raising Sugar Cane in some extent and the same was also transported to Deccan Sugars, Samlkota from the year 2005-2006 onwards. The remaining extent of land is being used for grazing purpose, while growing crop and development of land the 2d respondent demanded to enhance the rent from 2,000/- to Rs.10,000/ per acre, for which the appellant expressed his inability to meet the demand of the 2nd respondent. Thereafter after negotiations with :7

2d respondent the appellant agreed to enhanced the rent for Rs.5000/ per acre but he firmly stated if appellant failed to enhance the rent from January,2016, defiantly he used out the lands to third parties, but the 2d respondent refused the same and proclaiming that he will induct 3rd parties into the properties. It is submitted that, the yield of the Sugar cane is also not good for every year in particularly in the year 2011 and the appellant have sustained huge loss for which compensation was also given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, to the cultivating tenants, the revenue officials also issued debt eligibility card in favour the appellant vide No.01A 152171 issued by Tahsildar, Peddapuram,therefore it was clearly establishing his lawful tenancy ship with the land lord.It is submitted that, the appellant enteredinto an agreement with Nava Bharat Ventures Limited Samalkotasince then he is supplying Sugar Cane to the Factory and finaly 2014-2015 crushing seasons and have to be supplied and now cane being cutting and has to supply as per agreement. Therefore, the 2nd respondent decided to evict the appellant from the properties for which the appelant resisted the same with a great difficulty and thereafter the appellant moved Tenancy Petition on the file of Special Officer, Tenancy Case Cum Principal Junior Clvil Jude, Peddapuram and it was numbered as ATC 2

::8 AOR No. 1of 2021 of 2015 and subsequently the ATC is allowed declaring that the appellantis the cultivating tenant of the properties and grantäng permanent injunction in his favour and restraining the 2 respondent from interfering with appellant lease hold rights over the schedule properties except under due process of law. It is submitted that, as per sec. 15 (1) of The AP (AA) Tenancy Act.1956 any land lord intending to sell the land leased to a cultivating tent shall give notice to such cultivating tenant, of his intention to sell such land, and requiring himnto exercise his option to purchase the land. The particulars to be specified in the notice and the time within which the option shall be exercised by cultivating tenant shall be such as may be prescribed which are mandatory. It is submitted that, where the cultivating tent exercises his option to purchase the land,but there is no agreement in regard to the price payable the land lord or the cultivating tenant may apply to the Special Officer for the determination of reasonable price of such land and the Special officer shall after giving notice to the land lord, and the Cultivating tenant and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the reasonable price. It is submitted that, as per tenancy laws the appellant herein is entitled to purchase the land, since he is a statutory tenant and in peaceful possession of the F schedule properties

:9 AOR No.1of 2021 till date, therefore the entire procedure adopted by the 1* respondent for realization of its dues are subject to the Tenancy with appellant and steps by the Learned Recovery Officer is totally untenable, arbitrary and illegal and voidable under tenancy laws. It is further submitted that all efforts of the bank in recovery proceedings in pursuance of e-auction dated 05.02.2016 including proclamation of sale cum auction notice dated 29.01.2021 by fixed sale and held on 18.03.2021 in respect of F schedule properties to an extent of Ac. 17.66 Cents are untenable, illegal and liable to be stayed on the ground that no notice was given to the appellant as a lawful tenant by virtue of ATC 2/2015 and he is in peaceful possession of the schedule properties and the bank without verifying possession and rights and without notice to the appellants sold F schedule property on 18.03.2021. It is further submitted that the Ld. Recovery Officer is making preparation for issuance of sale certificate and register the same in favour of the purchaser in respect of schedule property, therefore, pending disposal of the appeal, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to order status quo till the disposal of the appeal as otherwise the appellant would suffer grave and irreparable loss. Therefore, the appellants prays that the Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the orders passed in IA.NO.10/2016 IN

:10

RPNO.120 OF 2013 IN OA.91 OF 2008 dt. 21-03-2020 including to set- aside the e-auction notice dt.29-01-2021 conducting auction on 18-03- 2021 bydeclaring that the appellant is the law full statutory tenant by virtue of orders in ATC 2/2015 passed by the Special officer for Tenancy cases-Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram dt.20th October,2021 in respect of 'F" schedule property and also permit to deposit sale price in order to release of schedule properties from sale conducted on 18-03-2021 in the interest of justice. Counter to AOR 1 of 2021 on behalf of the 1Srespondent has been

3. filed denying the averments mentioned in the AOR and further stated that the material allegations made in the above appeal are all not true, valid, tenable in law and binding on the 1 Respondent. The petitioner is put to strict proof of every allegation which are not expressly traversed herein ornotdeemed to be admitted herein.The AOR is misconceived since the petitioner has suppressed material facts and the application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.The petition is malafide in nature, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is not maintainable elther on facts or in law.The petition and consequenty the appeal are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.At the outset the 1s" respondent respectfully submits that the claim of the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts consequence of which this Appeal is also not maintainable. Even as per the averments of the appeal, the petitioner has no right or locus to file the appeal. The sole issue for consideration of the Honourable tribunal is that "whether the claim of the appellant that his claim of right, over the subject properties, as a tenant or not? In this context the contentions, averments and allegations made by the appelant are unsustainable either on facts or in law.The pleadings and documents filed by the appellant itself categorically demonstrating that the dlaim of tenancy is false and concocted with some ulterior motives.It is to respectfully submit that the contention of the petitioner about the tenancy is not correct andthe same is not a valid lease for the following reasons: (a) the 1s respondent/C.Hr most respectfully submits that Section 17 of the registration Act 1908 contemplates the documents which shall be compulsorily registerable. And clause (d) of Section 17 was substituted in the year 1999 accordingly every lease irrespective of its tenure shall be registered otherwise it shall have no legal sanctity,(b) Section 106 & 107 of Transfer of Property Act: A lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a year : 12

rent, can be made only by a registered instruments. As per the contentions of the petition the alleged lease is from year to year, fora period exceeding one year and reserving yearly rent as such the same shall be in writing and registered under the provisions of the Transfer of property Act. But the petitioner failed to submit any such document in proof of his contentions, (c) As per the averments, the F Schedule properties were orally leased in favour of the Appellant by the 20 Respondent. As the 2nd Respondent is a limited Company, no transfer can be made by its Managing Director without proper Authority. Further the 1 Respondent submits that the F Sdhedule properties are belonging to Mr. B. Ravindranath, Certificate Debtor No.2 and does not belong to the 2 Respondent in this appeal i.e., Vensa Biotech Limited and hence the Schedule-F lands were mortgaged by Mr. B. Ravindranath in favour of the CHr in his individual capacity. Hence for this reason is also the alleged lease by 2d Respondent in favour of the Appellant is untenable. Hence when there is not a valid lease in the eye of law there is no valid claim and consequential entitlement for the benefit under the Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956.It is to respectfully submit ATC 2/2015 is not binding on the 1 respondent herein for the following two reasons: (a) as a settled principle of law any decree in any suit/case is personam but not in rem, (b) the pleadings of the appellant categorically demonstrating that the appellant has clear knowledge of day to day status of the RP 120/2013, and the rights of the 1s respondent, but did not prefer to add the 1* respondent in the said ATC, must be an intentional act, to geta favourable order. Any suit/case is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence it is to respectfully submit that the any order in ATC 2/2015 is not binding on the 1 respondent herein.The falsity of the claim can also be understood from the facts and circumstances. It is to respectfully submit that the 2nd respondent did not mention anything about the existence of any such lease before the Honourable High Court of Telangana in WP 30935/2011. If the contentions of the appellant are true, eitherthe 2 respondentor the CDR No.2 Mr. B. Ravindranathwould have mentioned before the Honourable High Court of Telangana. The copy of the order of the Honourable High Court is also hereto annexed for kind consideration of the Honourable Tribunal.The documents filed by the appellant in support of his claim and contentions, are not suficient and at the very face they are evident that they are concocted for the purpose of making a false claim with some ulterior objectives. The contentions of the appellant in his pleadings that he is paying rent to the 2d respondent must be : 14

The 1st wrong as no proof is filed to substantiate such pleadings. respondent respectfully submit that there is no lease, either valid nor invalid, consequence of which he is not entitled for the protection under the AP (AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 yet in consequence his present claim also fails.At the cost of repeatation it is to respectfuly submit that since there is no tenancy at all and the alleged tenancy is only concocted the very law is not applicable and the petitioner is not entitled to gain the benefit under the said law. Hence the very claim is unsustainable either on facts or in law. Hence such false claim cannot be a barrio for the legal recovery process of the 1st respondent. The petitioner has failed to produce any proof that he is in occupancy of the property since 2000. The very contention of the petitioner is not maintainable as he has not even submitted any proof as kauldar and since he is not a kauldar as pleaded there is no entry as required with the Revenue Authorities. If his argument is true, he should have been submitted a proof of revenue records in support of his case. A mere statement with collusion with the 2 respondent that he is a tenant is not maintainable under the law to file the claim petition and to gain the benefits under the tenancy laws.The debt relief card alleged to be issued by the Tahsildar, Peddapuram must be rank forged otherwise obtained by illegal means 15:

and such certificate is not disclosing any tenancy over the schedule lands. The Two Cheques alleged to be obtained as loan from the Government must also be concocted since no such entries are reflected in the card submitted by the petitioner. Last but not the least, there are no averments, contentions and allegations in the pleadings of the appellant in his appeal about any illegalities in the order dt.21-03-2020 by the Ld. Recovery Officer, when there are no averments mentioning the illegalities in the order, the appeal fails on this sole reason.

4. The respondent No. 2 has filed his counter to AOR 1 of 2021 denying the averments mentioned in the AOR and further stated that the main and material allegations of the above appeal are all neither true nor tenable under law and the allegations which are not specifically traversed herein are not deemed to have been admitted by this respondent and the appellant is put to strict proof of the same. This respondent submitted that at the outset the above appeal is not maintainable either under law or on facts. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V(1) of the appeal that the appellant is the tenant to this respondent is absolutely false and baseless allegation made by the appellant for the purpose of filing I.A.

AOR No. 1of 2021 10/2016 as well as this appeal. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V(2) of the appeal that the appellant came to know about the e-auction notice dated 05.02.2016 being made by the 1s respondent are all not true. However, this respondent is the owner of the schedule property. The further allegations that the appellant filed ATC 2/2015 on the file of Special Court Cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram against this respondent and that the same was decreed on 20.10.2016 are all not known to this respondent and all such they are hereby denied and the appellant is put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the said ex-parte decree was never to the knowledge of this respondent as no notices were served on this respondent and the appellant might have played fraud on this said Court and might have obtained such decree and the question of giving schedule property on oral lease to the appellant subsequently does not arise at all and this respondent reserves his right to initiate appropriate legal action against the appellant. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V(3) of the appeal that the appellant filed I.A. 10/2016 before the Ld. Recovery Oficer is true but with false allegations as such the same was rightly dismissed. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner cannot challenge the auction dated 05.02.2016 or u

on any other ground and if at all to be questioned, it is for this respondent. It is submitted that the said auction was never held even according to the appellant and thus he cannot file this appeal and on this ground itself the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V (4, 5 & 6) of the appeal that the issuance of fresh proclamation of sale dated 29.01.2021 fixing sale on 10.01.2021 and that the same was postponed to 18.03.2021 are all matters of record which needs no comment. However, the appellant did not choose to challenge the said subsequent auction and when did not implead the auction purchaser, the above appeal is not maintainable under law. Thus the orders passed in I.A. 10/2016 by the Ld. Recovery Officer hold good and cannot be questioned by the present appellant. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V (7) of the appeal that the appellant was inducted as a tenant to the schedule property on a rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month that too on an oral lease are all utter falsehood since this respondent never leased out the schedule property to anybody much less the appellant and as such he cannot neither question the auction nor the orders passed in IA 10/2016 and cannot file the present appeal since the appellant might have obtained the order in ATC 2/2015

: 18

by suppressing the material facts. This respondent submitted that the allegations in Para V (8) of the appeal are all false. The allegation that the appellant invested huge amounts for cultivation and that he has been paying regular rents to this respondent and that there is no practice in issuing receipt for proof are all false and invented for the purpose of filing IA 10/2016 and the present appeal. It is submitted that when there is no lease at all, the question of paying rents and not issuing any receipts do not arise at all. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V(9) of the appeal that regarding the enhancement of the alleged rent is also equally false and invented for the purpose of this appeal and the appellant is put to strict proof of the same. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V (10) of the appeal that the appellant raised sugarcane crop in some extent and that it was transported to Deccan Sugar, Samalkota from the year 2005-2006 and that the remaining extent is being used for grazing purpose and that this respondent demanded to enhance the rent formRs. 2000/- to Rs.10,000/- and that the appellant expressed hisinability to meet the demand and that on negotiations this respondent agreed to receiveRs.5,000/- per acre and that the appellant shall enhance the rent again from January2016, failing which, this respondent 19:

would induct third parties are all false and inventedfor the purpose of this appeal and the appellant is put to strict proof of the same.However, the appellant miserably failed to fle any single piece of paper in support hi_allegations either with regard the alleged lease or tenancy or even raising of crops as alleged. This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in para V (11) of theappeal are all also false and invented for the purpose of this appeal. The debt eligibilitycard might have been obtained by the appellant by misrepresenting the facts before theRevenue Authorities or by the Management and even then the same does not relate tothe schedule land.The alleged letter said to have been issued by "Nava BharatVentures Limited", Samalkota is also false and created for the purpose of filingATC 2/2015 since the appellant filed ATC 2/2015 immediately after obtaining such letterdated 06.02.2015 and the appellant intentionaly suppressed such material facts andthus played fraud with not only the revenue authorities, but also the Courts/Tribunals atrespective stages and thus might have obtained such an exparte order which does notbind this respondent consequently not enforceable under law.This respondent submitted that the allegations mentioned in Para V (12 and 13) ofthe appeal that this respondent decided to evict the appellant from the scheduleproperties and that the :20

appellant as such filed ATC 2/2015 to protect his rights are allfalse and baseless allegations. It is submitted that when there is no lease at all andwhen there is no tenant and landlord relationship between the appellant and thisrespondent as alleged, the question of this respondent trying to evict the appellant doesnot arise at all. However, when there is no such relationship between the appellant andthis respondent, the AP (AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 has no application to the appellant. This respondent submitted that after long battle with the 1t respondent, this respondent however settled the matter with the 18" respondent before the Hon'ble HighCourt of A.P. in W.P.No.30935/2011 according to which the 18respondent has torealize the other properties owned by this respondent herein retaining the scheduleproperty which is to be sold by them and realize its dues as full and final settlement of total dues. This respondent submitted that the documents filed in the appeal do not relate tothe schedule property and they are all fabricated for the purpose of filing 1.A. 10/2016before the Ld. Recovery Officer and to file the present appeal and they have no bearingto the present set of alleged facts.This Respondent submitted that there are no valid and cogent reasons in filing thepresent Petition and as such the same may be dismissed.This Respondent submitted that viewed from any angle,

AOR No. 1of 2021 the above appeal is devoidof any merits as such the same is liable to be dismissed. This Respondent, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased todismiss the above appeal with exemplary costs.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant filed his written arguments

5. reiterating the averments mentioned in the AOR and further stated thatto set aside the orders passed in IA.No.10/2016 IN RPNO.120 OF 2013 IN OA.91 OF 2008 dt. 21-03-2020 including to set-aside the e- auction notice dt.29-01-2021 conducting auction on 18-03-2021 by declaring that the appellant is the law full statutory tenant by virtue of orders in ATC 2/2015 passed by the Special officer for Tenancy cases cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram dt.20h October,2021 in respect of 'F" schedule property and also permit to deposit sale price in order to release of schedule properties from sale conducted on 18-03 2021 in the interest of justice.

6. Ld. Counsels for respondents 1 & 2 have submitted theirarguments denying the arguments of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of AOR as there is no tenancy between the appellant and the 2nd respondent herein.

: 22 AOR No. 1 of 2021 The point for consideration is that whether the appellant is entited

7. for to set-aside the order passed in I.A. No. 20/2016 in RP No. 120 of 2013 in O.A. 91 of 2008 by the Ld. Recovery Officer in pursuant to order dated 21.03.2021 induding to set-aside the e-auction notice dated 29.01.2021 by conducting auction on 18.03.2021 and also permit the appellant to deposit sale price in order to release of "F" schedule properties (Standing in the name of B. Ravindranadh) auctioned on 18.03.2021 by allowing the appeal, to investigate into the matter and adjudicate the claim of the appellant that the appellant having lease hold rights over the schedule properties by virtue of ATC 2/2015 allowed by the Special Officer for Tenancy cases cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram dated 20h October, 2021 in respect of "F" schedule properties (tanding in the name of B. Ravindranadh) auctioned on 18.03.2021 in RP No. 120 of 2013 in OA No. 91 of 2008, to stay of all further proceedings including issuance of sale certificate and registration in favour of the auction purchaser in respect of schedule properties (Standing in the name of B. Ravindranadh) auctioned on 18.03.2021 in RP No. 120 of 2013 in OA No. 91 of 2008 til the disposal of the appea or not?

Heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the AOR, Courters

8. and documents filed by all the parties.On perusal of the material facts, it is admitted fact that the appellant is a third party to the loan transaction took place between the 1 respondent and the 2d respondent and in view of the default committed by the 2nd respondent, the loan account of the 20 respondent was declared as NPA and respondent bank initiated measures for recoery of the debt due to the respondent bank and the in the process of recovery of the loan owing to the 1s respondent, the Ld. Recovery Officer sold the schedule property in an e auction conducted on 18.03.2021 as per law. According to the Section 17 of the registration Act 1908 contemplates the documents which shall be compulsorily registerable. And clause (d) of Section 17 was substituted in the year 1999 accordingly every lease irrespective of its tenure shall be registered otherwise it shall have no legal sanctity,Section 106 & 107 of Transfer of Property Act: A lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a year rent can be made only by registered instruments. As per the contentions of the petition the alleged lease is from year to year, for a period exceeding one year : 24 AOR No. 1of 2021 and reserving yearly rent as such the same shall be in writing and registered under the provisions of the Transfer of property Act. Therefore the above said act is not lawful. The "F" Schedule properties were orally leased in favour of the Appellant by the 2" Respondent. As the 2nd Respondent is a limited Company, no transfer can be made by its Managing Director without proper Authority. Further the 1 Respondent submits that the F Schedule properties are belonging to Mr. B. Ravindranath, Certificate Debtor No.2 and does not belong to the 2 Respondent in this appeal i.e., Vensa Biotech Limited and hence the Schedule-F schedule were mortgaged by Mr. B. Ravindranath in favour of the CHr in his individual capacity. Therefore the applicant cannot have any alleged lease hold rights over the "F" schedule properties. So far as ATC 2/2015 it is not binding on 1s Respondent as 15 Respondent not added party to this. So no valid daim established by the applicant by way of order in ATC 2/2015 and it is not binding on this Tribunal. Moreover ATC 2/2015 allowed by the Special Officer for Tenancy cases cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapur exparty On the other hand, on perusal of the documents filed by all the parttes, it can be seen that the Ld. Recovery Officer has followed the 25:

entire procedure as laid down under the law. The appellant has not established that Recovery Officer not followed the procedure laid down under law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Ld. Recovery Officer has followed the entire procedure as laid down under the Act in respect of the schedule property and this AOR has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.

9. In the result, the AOR 1 of 2021 is dismissed, however, without

COsts. Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per Rules. Type to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 14 of October, 2021] PRESIDINGOFFICER /Y//0 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM