MANOJ SONI vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 5 November 2026

1. The appellant filed S.A. bearing no.106/2024 titled as **Manoj Soni V. State Bank of India & others** which is stated to be pending before DRT, Jaipur. DRT, Jaipur vide order dated 26.02.2024 has declined to grant interim injunction in favour of the appellant. It is reflecting from the record that the appellant is claiming himself to be the tenant in respect of the subject property on the basis of a registered Lease Deed dated 26.12.2022. However, as per the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 there was no evidence on record that a valid lease deed was in existence at the time of sanctioning of loan. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.02.2024 is reproduced as under:-

6. From the perusal of record, it is clear that the applicant is claiming to be tenant of the subject property by way of registered lease deed dated 26.12.2022. There is no evidence on record that the lease deed was in existence at the time of the sanction of the loan as any lease deed which has been created after the creation of the mortgage with the bank without consent of the respondent bank may not be protected under the law.

7. Therefore, merely because the applicant has a registered lease deed in his favour, the interim prayer of the applicant cannot be protected until and unless he proves that lease deed is prior to the creation of the equitable mortgage in favour of the respondent FI.

8. Therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of the S. applicant. The applicant is directed to file the date of sanction of the loan and creation of the equitable mortgage.

9. In view of the above facts, the prayer of interim injunction is declined.

10. Put up before Registrar for completion of pleadings on 01.05.2024.

2. Sh. Atul Saxena, Advocate for the appellant during the course of arguments prayed that six months' time may be granted to vacate the subject property. He further stated that the borrower is ready to settle and as such sufficient time may be granted to resettle himself.

3. Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate for the respondent no.1 argued that there is no evidence on record that as on date there exist any valid lease between the appellant and the respondent no.2 and the present appeal may be dismissed.

4. The respondent no.2 stated that he is ready to settle the matter with the respondent no.1 bank and has already submitted a proposal for OTS for consideration of the bank. Ms. Jaya Tomar in response to this submission stated that the OTS proposal submitted by the respondent no.2 has already been rejected.

5. There appears no evidence that there exists any valid lease between the appellant and the respondent no.2. It is also appearing that when the loan was sanctioned there was no lease agreement in existence. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.02.2024. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. However, the respondent no.2 shall be at liberty to make fresh efforts for an amicable settlement with the respondent no.1 in accordance with rules and regulations. Interim stay, if any, shall stand vacated.

SD/-

---

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

-pk\$