Application No. 16 of 2007. Case: Moushir Jamal Masalawala Vs Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. and Ors.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Judgment:

1. This is Securitisation application (for short S.A.) for quashing and setting aside orders passed by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (for short the Ld. CMM) on 11.05.2006 and 04.08.2008 in Miscellaneous application No. 165/Misc/2006 and Notice No. 64/N/2006, respectively. The application is also for quashing and setting aside the auction of Flat No. A/1203, 12th Floor, Prathamesh Residency, D.N. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai. The consequential relief of restoration of the possession of the flat is also sought. On 22.09.2006 the Respondent No. 1 Bank sold Respondent No. 2's flat to the Respondent No. 3 by invoking powers under by The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act").

2. The Applicant's case is that he was in possession of the flat on the basis of Leave and Licence Agreement dated 03.06.2005 for a period of 11 months. His further case is that agreed monthly compensation was Rs. 10,000/- per month and he had also paid a security deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 2 and further that the condition was that if the Respondent No. 2 does not refund the said deposit, he (the Applicant) would continue to occupy the premises free of compensation until the deposit is refunded. It is his further case that the Respondent No. 2 was required to perform certain obligations under the Leave and Licence Agreement but since he did not perform the same, he had terminated the Leave and Licence Agreement by a letter dated 29.05.2005 and in fact the Respondent No. 2 had also given a cheque dated 03.07.2005 of Rs. 16,00,000/-. But, the cheque was dishonoured and as per conditions of Leave and Licence Agreement he is entitled to continue to occupy the premises until receipt of the money. The Applicant has set out other contentions of Leave and License Agreement which are not material for the purpose of this application.

3. It is averred by the Applicant that immediately after he came to occupy the premises the officers of Respondent No. 1 bank and other banks started visiting and claiming that the flat was charged/mortgaged in their favour. In fact certain banks like State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Indian Overseas Bank and State Bank of Indore apart from the Respondent No. 1 gave letters to the Applicant in which all of them claimed to hold original Title Deeds. He states that appropriate judicial authority would have to decide about the original documents. It is further contended that since there can only be one set of original documents and the original Title Deeds are...