ADITYA BIRLA LIFESTYLE BRANDS LIMITED vs UCO BANK on 20 August 2026

1. 1. ADITYA BIRLA LIFESTYLE BRANDS LIMITED, (previously Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited) having its Registered Office at Piramal Agastya Corporate Park, Building 'A', 4th and 5th Floor, Unit No. 401, 403, 501, 502, L.B.S. Road, Kurla, Mumbai, Pin 400070, Maharashtra.

Appellant

-Versus-

1. 1. UCO Bank, Silpukhuri Branch, G.N.B. Road, Guwahati, Pin-781003, District- Kamrup (M), Assam, Represented by its Branch Manager.

2. 2. The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank, Silpukhuri Branch, G.N.B. Road, Guwahati, Pin781003, District- Kamrup (M), Assam.

...Respondents

Counsel for appellant : Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, (virtual)

Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. N Srinivas(virtual), Mr. V K Dewan

**Judgment : 20^th August, 2026**

**THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:**

The instant appeal preferred against the order dated 6^th April 2026 passed by Learned DRT Guwahati in S.A. No. 33 of 2026 in I.A. No. 150 of 2026 (***Aditya Birla Lifestyle Brands Ltd. Verses UCO Bank & Anr***) whereby the Learned DRT dismissed the I.A. No. 150 of 2026.

1. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant in Securitization application preferred an appeal. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the case records.


3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a registered company which is engaged in the retail business of Garments etc. Appellant executed a registered lease deed dated 11.11.2022 with Atiqur Rahman for the commercial space measuring 4645 sq. ft. carpet area along with other facilities as mentioned in the lease deed. Thereafter, he starting continuing his business as a lease deed was executed for a period of 9 years with effect from 24.10.2022 till 23.10.2031. On 03.01.2026 a notice of attachment was pasted on the leased premises, wherein the appellant was informed that the lessor has created an equitable mortgaged with the UCO bank wherein some default has committed and the same attached by the bank. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Securitization application U/s 17 of the Act for seeking relief for quashing the measures under taken by the bank under the Sarfaesi Act along with the IA No. 150 of 2026 to stay the action of the bank in pursuance of the measures taken by the bank. Opposition was filed by the bank, having considered the submissions, Learned DRT, Guwahati dismissed the IA no. 150/2026 holding that the action has already been conducted. No prima facie case is made out in favour of the appellant. Equitable mortgaged was created in favour of the bank wherein default was committed by the borrower.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a lessee on the basis of a registered lease deed prior to the creation of the mortgaged i.e. 28.11.2022, registered lease deed was executed on 11.11.2022. Hence, the rights of the appellant are protected U/s 13(13) of the Sarfaesi Act.

5. It is admitted by the respondent bank in their counter affidavit filed today wherein it is stated in pare 16 to 19, which reads as under:-

16. *Furthermore, in view of the fact that the registered lease deed is dated November 11, 2022 and the mortgage was created on November 28, 2022, the appellant can be permitted to carry on with the business till the property is under the possession of the Bank or the issuance of sale certificate, however with a direction to deposit the proportionate lease rent as proposed in the letter dated February 13, 2026 with the respondent bank.*

17. *It is respectfully submitted that indisputably, the respondent No. 1 is a secured creditor and the schedule property is a secured asset. The respondents are thus entitled to in law and on facts to proceed with its measures under the Act, 2002 against its security interest including the leased out portion of the schedule property with the appellant as a registered*

lessee. The appellant therefore cannot have any objection in any manner whatsoever to any measure of sale under the Act, 2002 by the respondents, which recognizes the appellant as a registered lessee.

18. Save and except what have been dealt by the answering respondents hereinabove, each and every allegation in the appeal shall be deemed to have been dealt with specifically and denied in toto.

19. It is respectfully submitted that in view of indisputable facts and materials on records, the appellant can be permitted to carry on its business in the schedule premises till the possession is with the Bank or issuance of sale certificate, with a direction to the NOTARY appellant deposit the proportionate lease rent i.e. Rs. 3,09,980/- with the bank till the property is put to sale under the Act, 2002, in the interest of justice.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant would submitted that the contents of para 16 to 19 are no disputed by the appellant, but the appellant should be asked to deposit the rent in favour of the bank in accordance with the law i.e. a demand be made by the bank to the appellant and the appellant is ready to deposit the rent in favour of the bank. Further, it is submitted that the appellant is not liable for any dues prior to possession of the lease property in his favour.

7. As far as the issue of payment of rent is concern whether appellant is required to make the payment of rent directly to the bank till the date of getting back the possession from the date when the possession was taken over by the bank or whether the appellant is required to pay the rent only from the date of resumption of the possession after the decision of this appeal. This issue needs to be considered on facts but as far as the issue of taking over of the possession from the appellant is concern, that issue itself is to be decided in favour of the appellant, as admittedly, he is a registered lessee of the property prior to the creation of the mortgage by the borrower/ lessor. It is also to be observed that the appellant as per the contents in para 19 of the counter affidavit filed by the bank, which is also admitted by the appellant, is liable to make the payment to the bank from the date he gets over the possession but so far as the issue of paying rent from the date which is when possession was taken over, we leave it to the Learned DRT, to decide it at the time of deciding the SA finally. Accordingly appeal is liable to be disposed of.

ORDER

Appeal is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 6th April 2026 passed by Learned DRT Guwahati in S.A. No. 33 of 2026 in I.A. No. 150 of 2026 (Aditya Birla Lifestyle Brands Ltd. Verses UCO Bank & Anr) is set aside. Possession of the property should be handed over to the appellant forthwith by the bank. The appellant should make the payment of rent to the bank from the date it is given back the possession. However, the issue of payment of rent for the period when the possession was with the bank shall be decided by the DRT at the time of final disposal of the SA. Now the onwards rent shall be paid by the appellant to the bank directly. All issues are kept open to be decided by the DRT.

No order as to costs.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the Judgment/ Final order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of August, 2026.

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

Dated 20th August, 2026 A. Kumar