Holding

A tenant claiming rights under an oral or unregistered agreement must prove a valid tenancy with documentary evidence, and such tenancy cannot survive beyond one year from the issuance of a SARFAESI notice; consequently, the High Court's order restoring possession was erroneous.

Summary

The appellant, PNB Housing Finance Ltd., took symbolic and later physical possession of a premises that had been offered as security for a loan to the borrower (2nd Respondent) after the borrower defaulted. The 1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant of the premises since 1987 under an unregistered lease and sought restoration of possession. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the tenancy claim was based on an oral, unregistered agreement and dismissed the interim relief, directing the matter for final hearing. The High Court, however, entertained a revision petition under Art. 227 and ordered restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred, as the SARFAESI Act provides an exclusive appellate remedy and the tenant failed to produce evidence of a valid tenancy prior to the SARFAESI notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court order and directed that the status quo be maintained pending the securitisation application. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The High Court erred in directing restoration of possession to the 1st Respondent despite the existence of an appellate remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether an oral or unregistered tenancy agreement can confer a right to retain possession of a secured asset after a SARFAESI notice.
Whether the tenant bore the onus of proving a valid tenancy and, if so, what evidence is required.
Whether the non‑obstante clause of the SARFAESI Act overrides the rights of tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002s. 13(2), s. 13(4), s. 14, s. 17(4A), s. 18, s. 35
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002s. 8(1), s. 8(2)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 65A
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to hand back the possession of the secured asset to the 1st respondent; whether the 1st Respondent failed to establish pre-existing tenancy in his favour. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.13(2), (4) – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – 1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant of the secured asset since 1987, through an unregistered tenancy agreement – Tenancy expired in 1992, however, 1st Respondent

Subjects

tenant of secured assetunregistered tenancy agreementSARFAESI Actpre‑existing tenancypossession of secured assetmandatory orderappellate remedytenant in sufferance

Judgment

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1041 : 2025 INSC 847

PNB Housing Finance Limited
v.
Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 9492 of 2025)
15 July 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and
Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in directing the appellant to hand
back the possession of the secured asset to the 1st respondent;
whether the 1st Respondent failed to establish pre-existing tenancy
in his favour.

Headnotes†
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.13(2), (4) – West
Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – 1st Respondent claimed
to be a tenant of the secured asset since 1987, through an
unregistered tenancy agreement – Tenancy expired in 1992,
however, 1st Respondent alleged that he continued as a monthly
tenant – Landlord sold the secured asset to 2nd Respondent-
borrower in 2007 who later took a loan from the Appellant in
2017 against creation of security interest on the premises –
Loan account not serviced, became a NPA – Demand notice
issued u/s.13(2) in 2021 – Eventually, physical possession of
the secured asset was taken by the Appellant – 1st Respondent
sought back possession of the secured asset, High Court
directed restoration of possession – Interference with:
Held: Onus lies on tenants claiming through an oral/unregistered
agreement to produce rent receipts, property/water taxes receipts,
electricity charges, etc., to establish the creation of a valid tenancy –
Even then, such tenancies created through an oral/unregistered
agreement would not continue beyond one year from issuance
of notice u/s.13(2) and the tenant upon expiry of the said period
shall be deemed to be a ‘tenant in sufferance’ – Although, 1st
Respondent claimed he was a tenant in the secured asset from

* Author
1042 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1987, he was unable to place on record any rent receipt, tax
receipt or electricity bill evidencing continued occupation of the
premises prior to issuance of demand notice u/s.13(2) – He only
relied on documents showing deposit of rent with Rent Controller
from January 2022 to December 2022, that is, after demand notice
was issued by the Appellant – Mere reference to some pre-existing
tenancy in the sale deed or issuance of letter of attornment by
2nd Respondent-borrower unsubstantiated by independent and
convincing possessory evidence would not establish a compelling
case of pre-existing tenancy in favour of 1st Respondent – Evidence
adduced by 1st Respondent before the DRT with regard to prior
tenancy not convincing – Further, institution of the ejectment suit by
2nd Respondent may not be a determining factor as the possibility
of setting up a sham and collusive suit to defeat the claim of the
Appellant cannot be ruled out – Furthermore, 1st Respondent
had also failed to take prompt steps to protect his interest in the
secured asset – Only after physical possession had been taken
over by the Appellant, did he approach the DRT for restoration
of possession – A mandatory order restoring status quo ante
necessitates a compelling case which 1st Respondent failed to
establish – His indifferent conduct and failure to produce rent
receipts and/or other evidence regarding continued possession
prior to issuance of demand notice u/s.13(2) does not justify a
mandatory order – Impugned order set aside – Status quo to
be maintained in respect of the secured asset till the disposal of
securitization application – Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,
2002 – r.8(1), (2). [Paras 18, 23-26]

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – s.18 – Physical
possession of the secured asset was taken by the Appellant –
1st Respondent claimed to be a tenant of the secured asset,
filed a securitization application, inter alia, praying for handing
back possession of the secured asset – An interim application
seeking stay of notice u/s.13(4) and other reliefs was also
filed – DRT held the claim of tenancy was based on an
unregistered instrument and neither borrower nor the tenant
had intimated the Appellant about the tenancy at the time of
creation of mortgage – Interim relief rejected by DRT, matter
fixed for final hearing – Order challenged by 1st Respondent
before High Court u/Art.227 – High Court directed restoration
of possession – Propriety:
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1043

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.

Held: Order of DRT is appealable before the appellate tribunal
u/s.18 – High Court ought not to have entertained the matter in
view of the existence of appellate remedy u/s.18 – Interference
of High Courts u/Art.226/227 in matters pertaining to SARFAESI,
deprecated. [Para 12]

Case Law Cited
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction
Company Limited and Ors. [2014] 11 SCR 605 : (2014) 6 SCC 1;
Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Ors. [2016] 1 SCR 419 :
(2016) 3 SCC 762; Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central
Bank of India and Anr. [2019] 12 SCR 352 : (2019) 9 SCC 94;
V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal [1980] 1 SCR 334 :
(1979) 4 SCC 214; Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and Ors. [2000]
Supp. 1 SCR 645 : (2000) 6 SCC 394; Varimadugu Obi Reddy v.
B. Sreenivasulu and Ors. [2022] 16 SCR 1108 : (2023) 2 SCC
168; South Indian Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip
and Anr. [2023] 4 SCR 18 : (2023) 17 SCC 311 – referred to.

List of Acts
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Constitution of India;
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; Transfer of Property
Act, 1882; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

List of Keywords
Tenant of the secured asset; Unregistered tenancy agreement;
Unregistered instrument; Demand notice under Section 13(2),
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; SARFAESI Act; Prior
tenancy; Mortgage; Continued occupation of the premises prior
to issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2), Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002; Onus lies on tenants; Oral/unregistered
agreement; Valid tenancy; Rent receipt; Tax receipt; Electricity
bill; Tenant in sufferance; DRT; Borrower; Restoration of status
quo ante; Restoration of possession; Loan; Creation of security
interest on the premises; Symbolic possession; Physical possession
of secured asset taken; Pre-existing tenancy; Tenancy expired;
1044 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Monthly tenant; Claimed tenancy protected under West Bengal
Premises Tenancy Act, 1997; Tenancy at the time of creation of
mortgage; Ejectment suit; Non-Performing Asset; Secured asset;
Securitization application; Original Landlord; New landlord; Non-
payment of rent; Secured creditor; Recovery of possession of
secured asset; Letter of attornment; Taking possession of secured
asset; Direction to hand back the possession of the secured asset;
Sham and collusive suit; Rent laws; Indifferent conduct; Mandatory
order; Alternate remedy; Appellate remedy; status quo ante.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9492 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2024 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CO No. 3572 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv., Ramesh N. Keswani, Pranav Singal, Ravi
Raghunath Vachher, Arjun Vachher, R. N. Keswani.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Siddharth, Ms. Racheeta Chawla,
Ms. Riddhi Bose, Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Rishi Aggarwal, Prateek
Goyal, Harshit Manwani.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order passed by High Court
whereby the secured asset1 whose possession was taken by the
Appellant, was directed to be handed back to the 1st Respondent.
3. 1st Respondent claims to be a tenant of the secured asset. He had
entered into an unregistered tenancy agreement with M/s Janapriya

1 Space of 450 sq.ft. on first floor, 1 Allenby Road, Kolkata – 700020
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1045

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.

Finance and Industrial Investment (India) Pvt. Ltd2 for a period of
5 years. In 1992, the term of tenancy expired. But 1st Respondent
alleged he continued as a monthly tenant under the original landlord.
In 2007, the original landlord sold the secured asset to 2nd Respondent.
By letter of attornment dated 04.03.2008, 2nd Respondent that is, the
new landlord called upon 1st Respondent to pay rent. 1st Respondent
contends he paid rent to 2nd Respondent and continued to occupy
the secured asset as a tenant.
4. On 09.02.2017, 2nd Respondent took a loan from the Appellant against
creation of security interest on the premises. A second loan was
also taken. The loan account was not serviced and became a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA). Demand notice under Section 13(2) of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 20023 was issued to the 2nd Respondent on
13.07.2021, requiring the latter to pay Rs.3,09,65,636.97/- along
with applicable future interest and charges within 60 days. The
notice further stated that, in the event of non-payment, the secured
creditor would initiate measures under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI,
including taking possession and sale of the secured asset. Despite
such intimation, no payment was made within 60 days of receipt of
notice. In the meantime, 2nd Respondent instituted an ejectment suit
against 1st Respondent on various grounds, including non-payment
of rent.
5. On 02.12.2021, symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken
by the Appellant under section 13(4) of SARFAESI. As per Rule 8 (1)
and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, notice of
symbolic possession was published in two leading newspapers and
also affixed on a conspicuous part of secured asset.
6. 2nd Respondent filed a securitization application4 before Debt Recovery
Tribunal5 - III, Kolkata challenging the recovery measures initiated
under section 13(4) of SARFAESI.
7. On 08.04.2022, Appellant filed an application under section 14 of
SARFAESI, seeking assistance of District Magistrate to take physical

2 Original landlord
3 hereinafter referred to as, ‘SARFAESI’
4 No.139/2022
5 hereinafter referred to as, ‘DRT’
1046 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

possession of the secured asset. District Magistrate allowed the
application and directed Deputy Magistrate to take possession of the
secured asset. However, DRT by order dated 09.11.2022, directed
the Appellant to serve prior notice to 2nd Respondent before taking
physical possession. Accordingly, on 19.07.2023 intimation was
given to 2nd Respondent with regard to taking over possession of
the secured asset. Similar notice was also pasted on the secured
asset. On 02.08.2023, physical possession was taken by the Deputy
Magistrate and handed over to the Appellant.
8. On 23.08.2023, 1st Respondent informed the Appellant he was a
tenant of the secured asset and called upon the latter to hand over
documents on the basis of which possession of secured asset was
taken. Thereafter, 1st Respondent filed a securitization application6,
inter alia, praying for various reliefs including handing back possession
of the secured asset. An interim application7 seeking stay of notice
dated 02.08.2023 under section 13(4) and other reliefs was also filed.
9. After hearing the parties, DRT held the claim of tenancy was based
on an unregistered instrument. Neither borrower nor the tenant had
intimated the Appellant about the tenancy at the time of creation of
mortgage. Given these facts, in view of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar
v. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors.8,
DRT rejected interim relief and fixed the matter for final hearing.
10. 1st Respondent assailed DRT order before the High Court under Article
227 of the Constitution. The Appellant resisted the application on
the ground of existence of alternate remedies as well as on merits.
Referring to paragraph 29 of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra),
High Court repelled the argument regarding alternate remedy and
directed restoration of possession as follows:
“17. Thus, the contention of the bank that there is an
alternative remedy of appeal is not accepted by this court
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. By the
order impugned, the right of the petitioner as canvassed
in his SA, has been finally decided. A doctor who was in

6 No.737/2023
7 No.2331/2023
8 (2014) 6 SCC 1
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1047

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.

occupation of the premises and running his chamber, in
my, prima facie, view could not be thrown away without
due process of law. The issue whether the doctor was
inducted as a valid tenant and/or whether his possession
was legal or not, are matters which will be decided in the
SA, but the occupation cannot be doubted, as available
from the records.
18. Under such circumstances, the interim prayer for use
of the premises as a chamber ought to have been granted
to the petitioner by the learned tribunal in lawful exercise
of jurisdiction vested upon it, with certain conditions.
19. Accordingly, the revisional application is allowed.”
11. Mr. Suri contended the High Court ought not to have entertained the
matter in view of the existence of appellate remedy under section 18
of SARFAESI. We are in wholesome agreement with this submission.
12. In 2016, SARFAESI was amended. By the amending Act, section
17(4A) was introduced with effect from 01.09.2016, enabling any
person claiming to be lessees/tenants in respect of secured assets
to approach the DRT against measures under section 13(4) of
SARFAESI, including taking possession of the secured asset. Tribunal
was empowered to declare such measures invalid and restore
possession. Order of DRT was made appealable before the appellate
tribunal under section 18 of SARFAESI. In light of the aforesaid
statutory scheme, this Court repeatedly deprecated interference of
High Courts under Article 226/227 in matters pertaining to SARFAESI.9
13. In the present case, High Court erroneously relied on Harshad
Govardhan Sondagar (supra) to entertain the application. The
observations in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) with regard
to absence of statutory remedy available to a lessee/tenant to
assail measures under section 13(4) before DRT is based on the
pre-amended law and has no manner of application under the post
amendment regime. Be that as it may, as the High Court had examined
the matter on merits and restored possession of the secured asset
to 1st Respondent, we have tested the correctness of the impugned
direction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9 Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu and Ors. (2023) 2 SCC 168 [Para 36]; South Indian Bank Ltd.
and Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Anr. (2023) 17 SCC 311 [Para 17]
1048 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14. Defending the order, Mr. Gupta submitted 1st Respondent had been
inducted as a tenant in 1987 initially under an unregistered lease
agreement for 5 years. Thereafter, he was continuing as a monthly
tenant. His tenancy is protected under the West Bengal Premises
Tenancy Act, 199710 and he could be evicted only on the grounds
enumerated under section 6 of the said Act. Recovery of possession
of secured asset by the Appellant illegally extinguished the tenancy
and deprived him of his constitutional right to property.
15. Rights of lessees/tenants in properties which are held by financial
institutions as secured assets under SARFAESI fell for consideration
in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra). The Bench analyzed
the impact of SARFAESI, particularly section 13 on the rights of
lessees/tenants in the secured asset. The Bench held though
section 13(13) of SARFAESI overrides section 65A of the Transfer
of Property Act, 188211 and renders invalid any lease created by
the borrower after issuance of notice under section 13(2) without
taking written permission of the secured creditor, the said section
does not determine a prior lease created by a registered instrument.
However, if the lessee claims tenancy through an oral/unregistered
agreement, the term of the lease cannot exceed one year and the
lessee is not entitled to possession of the secured asset beyond a
period of one year.
16. In Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Ors. 12, a Coordinate
Bench carved out an exception from the ratio in Harshad Govardhan
Sondagar (supra) with regard to tenancies created under the rent laws.
The Bench held SARFAESI and rent laws operate in separate fields
and the non-obstante clause in the former cannot override the latter:
“35. The decision of this Court rendered in Harshad
Govardhan Sondagar cannot be understood to have held
that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act override the
provisions of the Rent Control Act, and that the banks
are at liberty to evict the tenants residing in the tenanted
premises which have been offered as collateral securities

10 hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rent Act’
11 hereinafter referred to as, ‘TP Act’
12 (2016) 3 SCC 762
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1049

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.

for loans on which default has been done by the debtor/
landlord”

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
“37. It is a settled position of law that once tenancy is
created, a tenant can be evicted only after following the
due process of law, as prescribed under the provisions of
the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted
by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would
amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given
to the tenant. A non obstante clause (Section 35 of the
SARFAESI Act) cannot be used to bulldoze the statutory
rights vested in the tenants under the Rent Control Act.
The expression “any other law for the time being in force”
as appearing in Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act cannot
mean to extend to each and every law enacted by the
Central and State Legislatures. It can only extend to the
laws operating in the same field.”
17. Subsequently, a Three-Judge Bench in Bajarang Shyamsunder
Agarwal v. Central Bank of India and Anr.13 differed from Vishal N.
Kalsaria (supra) with regard to width of the non-obstante clause
under section 35 of SARFAESI:
“23. While we agree with the principle laid out in Vishal
N. Kalsaria case that the tenancy rights under the Rent
Act need to be respected in appropriate cases, however,
we believe that the holding with respect to the restricted
application of the non obstante clause under Section 35
of the SARFAESI Act, to only apply to the laws operating
in the same field is too narrow and such a proposition
does not follow from the ruling of this Court in Harshad
Govardhan case”
(emphasis supplied)

18. Noting the interplay between the objective of the SARFAESI vis-à-
vis TP Act and rent laws, Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra)

13 (2019) 9 SCC 94
1050 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

clarified onus lies on tenants claiming through an oral/unregistered
agreement to produce rent receipts, property/water taxes receipts,
electricity charges, etc., to establish the creation of a valid tenancy.14
Even then, such tenancies created through an oral/unregistered
agreement would not continue beyond one year from issuance of
notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI and the tenant upon expiry
of the said period shall be deemed to be a ‘tenant in sufferance’.
19. Mr. Gupta vehemently argued the ratio in Bajarang Shyamsunder
Agarwal (supra) that tenancy under the Rent Act is determined by
efflux of time runs counter to the Constitution Bench in V. Dhanapal
Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal15 and is not good law.
20. In V. Dhanapal Chettiar (supra), question which fell for consideration
before the Constitution Bench is whether a notice to determine
tenancy under section 106 of the TP Act is necessary for eviction of
a tenant under the rent laws. Answering in the negative, the Bench,
inter alia, held under the extended definition of the word “tenant”
under various State laws,16 jural relationship between the landlord
and tenant is not snapped on determination of contractual tenancy
and continues till order of eviction is passed.
21. In Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons and Ors.17, this Court reiterated jural
relationship between lessor/lessee created through an unregistered
instrument shall be protected under rent laws.
22. It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that the impact of the
non-obstante clause in SARFAESI on the provisions of the Rent
Act did not fall for consideration in the aforesaid authorities. On the
other hand, such issue was raised and answered vis-à-vis rights
of tenants/lessees under oral/unregistered agreement in Bajarang
Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra).
23. We choose not to delve into the aforesaid issue further as we are not
convinced with the evidence adduced by 1st Respondent before the

14 See Para 27
15 (1979) 4 SCC 214 [Para 6]
16 Section 2(g) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997– “ ‘tenant’ means any person by whom or on
whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be payable, and
includes any person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy….”
17 (2000) 6 SCC 394
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1051

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Sh. Manoj Saha & Anr.

DRT with regard to prior tenancy. Although 1st Respondent claimed
he was a tenant in the secured asset from 1987, he was unable to
place on record any rent receipt, tax receipt or electricity bill evidencing
continued occupation of the premises prior to issuance of demand
notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI. 1st Respondent has only
relied on documents showing deposit of rent with Rent Controller from
January 2022 to December 2022, that is, after demand notice was
issued by the Appellant. Mere reference to some pre-existing tenancy
in the sale deed or issuance of letter of attornment by 2nd Respondent
(who is also the borrower) unsubstantiated by independent and
convincing possessory evidence would not establish a compelling
case of pre-existing tenancy in favour of 1st Respondent. Given this
situation, institution of the ejectment suit by 2nd Respondent may not
be a determining factor as the possibility of setting up a sham and
collusive suit to defeat the claim of the Appellant cannot be ruled out.
24. High Court failed to consider these relevant aspects and illegally
directed restoration of status quo ante. High Court also lost sight of
the conduct of the 1st Respondent in failing to take prompt steps to
protect his interest in the secured asset. Appellant had on 02.12.2021
published notice of taking symbolic possession of the secured
asset in two leading newspapers and also pasted the notice in a
conspicuous place on the secured asset. In spite of such publication,
1st Respondent did not bother to intimate the Appellant with regard
to his pre-existing tenancy rights or approach the DRT.
25. Thereafter, on 19.07.2023 intimation notice regarding taking over
physical possession had been pasted on the secured asset. Even then
1st Respondent remained indifferent. Only after physical possession
had been taken over by the Appellant, did he approach the DRT for
restoration of possession. A mandatory order restoring status quo
ante necessitates a compelling cast iron case which 1st Respondent
has failed to establish. His indifferent conduct and failure to produce
rent receipts and/or other evidence regarding continued possession
prior to issuance of demand notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI
does not justify a mandatory order.
26. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal and set
aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and direct status
quo in respect of the secured asset till the disposal of securitization
1052 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

application18. The application shall be disposed of within 2 months from
the date of communication of this order without granting unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties.
27. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

18 No.737/2023