DHIRAJ GOPAL GEHANI vs AAVAS FINANCIERS LIMITED on 27 October 2026

1. Present as under: Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala i/b Mr. N. L. Karamchandani, Counsel for Appellants. Mr. Prafull Chipte i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures, Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Shakshi Murarka, Counsel for Respondent No. 2/3 through VC.

2. The application I.A. No. 624/2026 is filed with prayer to stay the effect of execution of the order dated 25.11.2025 passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as well as further measures proposed to be taken by Respondent No. 1 in pursuance of this order thereby restraining the respondents from taking physical possession of the property in question in pursuance of notice dated 13.10.2026.

3. At very inception the Counsel for the Appellants would submit that Appellants drop their 3rd and 4th prayer for time being with liberty to file separate application for these two prayers at later stage.

4. Allowed.

5. Heard on Application I.A. No. 624/2026 filed by the Appellants.

7. The Counsel for the Appellants would submit that this appeal is filed with regard to the impugned order dated 12.10.2026 passed by DRT-Nagpur whereby the Ld. DRT disposed of the I.A. (Diary) No. 2570/2026 by giving the protection of possession only up to 19.10.2026 as per the terms and conditions of “ Leave and License Agreement ” dated 19.10.2021.

8. The Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the Appellant is the licensee of the original borrower/Respondent No. 2 & 3 by way of license agreement dated 19.10.2021, that, this license agreement was up to 19.10.2026 only.

9. The Appellants are running the business under the name of “ Moss-SPA Hair Weaving & Bonding ”, having invested substantial capital and goodwill and entirely dependent on the said premises for their livelihood.

10. The Counsel for the Appellants would further submit that as per the Maharashtra Rent Control Act 199, the eviction proceedings against the Licensee can be filed against the licensee by the land lord only and not by any third party.

The Counsel for the Appellants would further submit that the Licensee Agreement with borrower was executed before the creation of the mortgage of the property to Respondent Bank. Therefore, the Appellants are in lawful possession and the same be protected under section 65 A of Transfer of Property Act.

The Counsel for the Appellants would further submit that the Appellants are ready to participate in the auction.

11. At this stage, the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank would submit that these all points have been considered by the Ld. DRT in the impugned order.

The Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank prays for time to file the detailed reply to the same.

12. In reply, the Counsel for the Appellants would submit that till the time Respondent No. 1/Financiers files his reply to the present application, the ad-interim temporary stay be granted otherwise the whole purpose of filing the present appeal will be frustrated.

13. Considered and perused the record.

14. The Counsel for Respondent No. 2/3 is directed to file her Vakalatnama.

15. In view of the request by Respondent No. 1, reply objection to the present application on the grounds of appeal be filed within two

weeks by Respondent with advance copy to the Appellants.

16. List the matter on 13.11.2026 for hearing on I.A. No. 624/2026.

17. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo in the interest of justice.

Chairperson 27.10.2026

VKC-03