# Satyanarayan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. 284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 283
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10552 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyanarayan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-284-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-51207
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Recovery Law - Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Sections 13(4), 14
&
35
-
Direction
issued
to
take
possession of mortgaged property -
Tenancy right over the shop, situating
at mortgaged property, how far liable
to
be
protected
-
No
tenancy
agreement with the landlords was
averred or monthly rents was disclosed
- Effect - Held, when the petitioners
are unable to establish with the help of
some
cogent
material
that
their
tenancy rights which were created
under an oral agreement, are still
continuing and are protected by any
provision of law which would have
effect in spite of the non-obstante
clause contained in Section 35 of the
SARFAESI Act referred to above, the
petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. (Para 16 and 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
details of 9 issues framed were not on
record. Learned counsel for petitioner has
placed reliance on Dalip ;Singh Vs. State of
U.P. 2010 SCC (2) 114, Ashwinkumar K.
Patel, Upendra J. Patel and others, (1993) 3
SCC 161 and Sriram and others Vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Allahabad Camp,
Fatehpur and others, 2009 0 Supreme (All)
2646.

10.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of contesting respondent
submitted that primary issue whether the suit
was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act was not only a question of fact
but it was a mixed question of law and fact,
therefore, it ought to have been decided after
returning findings on all 9 issues framed.

11. I have considered the above
submission and perused the record. In order to
consider the rival submissions, it would be
relevant to consider a judgment passed by
Supreme Court in Satyanath and Another Vs.
Sarojamani, 2022 (7) SCC 644, wherein it has
been held that "preliminary issues can be those
where no evidence required and on basis of
reading of plaint or applicable law, if
jurisdiction of the Court or bar to suit is made
out, the Court may decide the such issues with
sole objective of expeditious decision, however,
in case where issues both of law and of fact
arise in the same suit, and the Court is of
opinion that the case or any part thereof may be
disposed of on the issues of law only, it shall try
those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it
thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the issues
of fact until after the issues of law have been
determined".

12. In the present case, whether the suit
was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation
of Holdings Act was a mixed question of law
and fact, since in order to consider whether the
interest of petitioner (admittedly, a minor at that
time) was taken note by her mother during
proceedings under Consolidation Act or not and
for that the said material i.e. fact has to be
looked into, however, in present case, learned
Trial Court has entered into factual aspect of
case also at the stage of consideration of
preliminary issue on law and held that the suit
was barred.

13.
The
aforesaid
approach
is
absolutely contrary to Satya Nath (supra). The
Appellate Court also committed the same error
and proceeded to consider facts of case as well
as law and returned finding that plaintiff was
neither recorded in revenue record as a minor
nor his guardian was on record, therefore, the
order passed by Appellate Court was also in
teeth of Satya Nath (supra). The error
committed of Trial Court as well as Appellate
Court was cured by Board of Revenue that all
the issues has to be decided and findings has to
be returned to all the issues including the issue
whether the suit was barred or not. To decide a
mixed preliminary issue (on fact and on law)
would be an illegality.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, I
am of considered opinion that in present set of
facts an issue whether the suit was barred by
Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act was a mixed question of law and fact and,
therefore, it ought to have been decided along
with other issues and not as a preliminary issue
only.

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I
am of considered opinion that there is no reason
to
interfere
with
impugned
order
and
accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 283
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 10552 of 2024

Satyanarayan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Brajendra Amiy

A. Recovery Law - Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (SARFAESI Act) - Sections 13(4), 14
&
35
-
Direction
issued
to
take
possession of mortgaged property -
Tenancy right over the shop, situating
at mortgaged property, how far liable
to
be
protected
-
No
tenancy
agreement with the landlords was
averred or monthly rents was disclosed
- Effect - Held, when the petitioners
are unable to establish with the help of
some
cogent
material
that
their
tenancy rights which were created
under an oral agreement, are still
continuing and are protected by any
provision of law which would have
effect in spite of the non-obstante
clause contained in Section 35 of the
SARFAESI Act referred to above, the
petitioners cannot invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. (Para 16 and 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal Vs Central
Bank of India & ors.; AIR 2019 SC 5017

2. Trilokchand Fabrication (P) Ltd. Vs St. of
U.P.; 2024 SCC OnLine All 103 : 2024 (1) ADJ
824

3.
Harshad
Govardhan
Sondagar
Vs
International Assets Reconstruction Company
Ltd.; (2014) 6 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi , J.)

1.
Heard
Sri.
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava, the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Brajendra Amiy, the
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 6.

2. By means of the instant Writ
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have
sought
quashing
of
an order
dated
15.03.2024 passed by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Bahraich in Case no. 542 of 2023 under
Section 14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI
Act')
directing
the
Sub-divisional
Magistrate, Bahraich and the Officer Incharge, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar,
Bahriach to take possession of two secured
assets for recovery of debts taken by the
opposite party nos. 7, 8 and 10, for which
the opposite party no. 9 stood a guarantor.
They have also sought quashing of the
consequential
order
dated
16.11.2024
passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate,
Sadar Bahraich nominating the Naib
Tehsildar Sadar Bahraich as the Magistrate
for the purpose of taking possession of the
mortgaged property.

3. The petitioners claim that they are
tenants in respect of shop nos. 285, 286,
286, 289, 290 and 291 situated in a
building in Mohalla-Steelganj, Bisatkhan,
Kasgar Gali, Bahraich for the past more
than 60 years. The building in which the
aforesaid shops are situated, has been
mortgaged by the opposite parties no. 7, 8
and 10 without knowledge or consent of the
petitioners. The petitioners have filed an
application dated 29.11.2024 before the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
Revenue), Bahraich stating that they are
tenants in respect of the aforesaid shops
and, therefore, instead of taking physical
possession of the shops in their tenancy,
12 All. Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
merely notional / symbolic possession of
the shops should be taken from them. The
application remains undisposed off and the
petitioners have sought issuance of a
direction for disposal of their application
dated 29.11.2024.

4. Undisputedly, the building, the
shops situated wherein are in tenancy of the
petitioners, has been mortgaged with
Punjab National Bank (the opposite party
no. 6) for a loan taken by the opposite party
nos. 7, 8 and 10. As on 30.11.2022, a sum
of Rs.4,24,92,056.13/- was due against the
loan account, besides interest with effect
from 01.12.2022 and other expenses. The
borrowers have failed to repay the loan
amount in spite of a recovery notice having
been issued under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act. The borrowers did not
deliver
possession
of
the
mortgaged
property to the Bank whereupon the Bank
filed an application under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act which has been allowed by
means of an order dated 15.03.2024 passed
by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue), Bahraich. Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act provides for
taking physical possession of the secured
assets in such circumstances.

5. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioners
being the tenants of the shops situated in
the mortgaged property, have a legal right
to continue in physical possession of the
shops in question. Their tenancy rights
cannot be affected adversely by the failure
of the landlord to repay the amount of loan
taken by him from the Bank. He has placed
reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bajarang
Shyamsunder Agarwal versus Central
Bank of India and others: AIR 2019 SC
5017 and a judgment passed by this Court
in the case of Trilokchand Fabrication
(P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.: 2024 SCC
OnLine All 103 = 2024 (1) ADJ 824.

6.
In
Bajarang
Shyamsunder
Agarwal (Supra), the appellant claimed to
be a tenant of the premises in question
since January, 2000 whereas the property
was mortgaged on 20.05.2000 i.e. after the
commencement of tenancy. Upon failure of
the
borrower-landlord
to
repay
the
outstanding amount, the Bank filed an
application under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act for taking possession of
the secured assets, which was allowed. The
appellant-tenant filed an application before
the Magistrate which was rejected holding
that no registered lease deed has been
executed by the appellant and, therefore, he
is not entitled for the possession of the
secured asset for more than one year from
the date of execution of the unregistered
tenancy agreement in accordance with the
law laid down in Harshad Govardhan
Sondagar versus International Assets
Reconstruction Company Ltd.: (2014) 6
SCC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to Section 35 of the SARFAESI
Act, which provides as follows: -

"The provisions of this Act to
override other laws. The provisions of this
Act shall have effect, notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained
in any other law for the time being in force
or any instrument having effect by virtue of
any such law".

7.
In
Bajarang
Shyamsunder
Agarwal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court referred to its earlier decision in
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (Supra) in
which
the
appellant
-
Bajarang
Shyamsunder Agarwal was also a party and
wherein it was held that if the lawful
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
possession of the secured assets is not with
the borrower, rather it is with a lessee under
a valid lease, the secured creditor cannot
take possession of the secured assets until
the lawful possession of the lessee gets
determined and the lease will not get
determined if the secured creditor chooses
to take any of the measures specified under
Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act. If the
Magistrate is satisfied that a valid lease was
created before the mortgage and the lease
has not been determined in accordance with
Section 111 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 then he cannot pass an order for
delivery of possession of the secured assets
to the secured creditor. In case he comes to
the conclusion that there is no valid lease
either before the creation of mortgage or
after creation of mortgage satisfying the
requirement of Section 65-A of the
Transfer of the Property Act or even though
there was a valid lease, the same stands
determined in accordance with Section 111
of the Transfer of the Property Act, he can
pass order for delivery of the possession of
the secured assets to the secured creditor.

8. In Harshad Govardhan Sondagar
(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
distinguished the implications of the
registered and unregistered lease deed/oral
agreement in the following words: -

"36...We find that in the cases
before us, the appellants have relied on the
written instruments or rent receipts issued
by the landlord to the tenant Section 107 of
the Transfer of Property Act provides that a
lease of immovable property from year to
year, or for any term exceeding one year or
reserving a yearly rent, can be made 'only
by a registered instrument' and all other
leases of immovable property may be made
either by a registered instrument or by oral
agreement accompanied by delivery of
possession. Hence, if any of the appellants
claim that they are entitled to possession
of a secured asset for any term exceeding
one year from the date of the lease made
in his favour, he has to produce proof of
execution of a registered instrument in his
favour by the lessor. Where he does not
produce proof of execution of a registered
instrument in his favour and instead relies
on an unregistered instrument or oral
agreement accompanied by delivery of
possession,
the
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate or the District Magistrate, as
the case may be, will have to come to the
conclusion that he is not entitled to the
possession of the secured asset for more
than an year from the date of the
instrument or from the date of delivery of
possession in his favour by the landlord."
(Emphasis supplied by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court)

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further
held in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar
(Supra) that :-

"a)
The
provisions
of
the
SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override
the provisions of the Rent Act. The
landlord cannot be permitted to do
indirectly what he has been barred from
doing under the Rent Act.

b)
While
a
yearly
tenancy
requires to be registered, oral tenancy can
still be proved by showing that the tenant
has been in occupation of the premises
before the Magistrate under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act.

c) The nonregistration of the
tenancy deed cannot be used against the
tenant. For leasehold rights being created
after the property has been mortgaged to
the bank, the consent of the creditor needs
to be taken.
12 All. Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287

d) Even though Section 35 of the
SARFAESI Act has a non obstante clause,
it will not override the statutory rights of
the tenants under the Rent Control Act. The
non obstante clause under Section 35 of the
SARFAESI Act only applies to laws
operating in the same field.
(Emphasis added)

10. After taking into consideration the
aforesaid law laid down in the Harshad
Govardhan
Sondagar
(Supra),
the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Bajarang
Shyamsunder
Agarwal
as
follows: -

"In our view, the objective of
SARFAESI Act, coupled with the Transfer
of the Property Act and the Rent Act are
required to be reconciled herein in the
following manner:

a) If a valid tenancy under law is
in existence even prior to the creation of
the mortgage, the tenant's possession
cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor
by taking possession of the property. The
lease has to be determined in accordance
with Section 111 of the TP Act for
determination of leases. As the existence of
a prior existing lease inevitably affects the
risk
undertaken
by
the
bank
while
providing the loan, it is expected of
Banks/Creditors to have conducted a
standard due diligence in this regard.
Where the bank has proceeded to accept
such a property as mortgage, it will be
presumed that it has consented to the risk
that comes as a consequence of the existing
tenancy. In such a situation, the rights of a
rightful tenant cannot be compromised
under the SARFAESI Act proceedings.

b) If a tenancy under law comes
into existence after the creation of a
mortgage, but prior to the issuance of
notice
under
Section
13(2)
of
the
SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the
conditions of Section 65A of the T.P. Act.

c) In any case, if any of the
tenants claim that he is entitled to
possession of a secured asset for a term of
more than a year, it has to be supported by
the execution of a registered instrument.
In the absence of a registered instrument,
if the tenant relies on an unregistered
instrument
or
an
oral
agreement
accompanied by delivery of possession, the
tenant is not entitled to possession of the
secured asset for more than the period
prescribed under Section 107 of the T.P.
Act."
(Emphasis added)

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found
that the bona fide of the tenant was
doubtful, as there was no good or sufficient
evidence to establish the tenancy. The
tenants had allegedly entered into an oral
agreement of tenancy before the mortgage
deed was executed. The tenancy created
under an oral agreement results in a fresh
tenancy after expiry of the statutory period
fixed under the Transfer of the Property
Act.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
concluded in Bajarang Shyamsunder
Agarwal that when the claim of the
appellant-tenants was not supported by any
conclusive evidence, the rejection of his
stay application by the Magistrate was not
erroneous. Further, the operation of the
Rent Act cannot be extended to a 'tenant at
sufferance' vis-a-vis the SARFAESI Act
due to the operation of Section 13(2) readwith Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. A
contrary interpretation would fault the
intention of the legislature to provide for
Section 13, which has valuable role in
making the SARFAESI Act a selfexecutory instrument for debt recovery.
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Moreover, such an interpretation would
also violate the mandate of Section 35 of
the SARFAESI Act which is couched in
broad terms.

13. In Trilokchand Fabrication Pvt.
Ltd. (Supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court summarized the principles applicable
in such situation in the following words :-

"We have outlined the principles
emerging from the aforesaid discussion
below:

a) As mandated by Section 107
of the TPA 1882 and Section 17 of the
IRA, 1908, the lease of an immovable
property, beyond the period of one year
can only be created by a registered
instrument.
An
oral
agreement,
accompanied by the delivery of possession
cannot
create
a
lease
beyond
the
prescribed period under Section 107 of the
TPA 1882. An unregistered lease, cannot
be taken into consideration by the courts,
given the bar placed under Section 49 of
the IRA, 1908.

b) A tenancy where no period
has been fixed, or a tenancy which is
deemed to be a month-to-month tenancy,
cannot entitle a tenant to seek possession
of a secured asset beyond a period of one
year when proceedings have been initiated
under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

c) If a tenant intends to claim
the possession of a secured asset when
proceedings have been initiated under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act it must
necessarily be done by way of a registered
instrument executed in his favour.

d) When a tenant becomes aware,
that proceedings have been initiated under
Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act he can
either approach the concerned officer
authorised by the DM/CMM to take
possession of the secured asset, or
surrender the possession of the secured
asset. The authorised officer, in a case
where, the tenant, resists surrendering the
possession of a secured asset, will file an
application accompanied by an affidavit
containing the necessary details before the
DM/CMM. The DM/CMM on receipt of
such an application, will determine the
rights of the tenant in accordance with the
law. If the DM/CMM comes to the
conclusion that the tenant has a valid lease
entitling him to possession of the secured
asset, he will not pass an order delivering
the possession of the secured asset to the
creditor.

e) Even if a tenant approaches
the DRT, under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, the DRT cannot restore
possession of the secured asset to the
tenant. The DRT is only empowered to
restore possession of the secured asset to
the borrower, and not anyone else.

f) Section 34 of the SARFAESI
Act, read in conjunction with Section 9 of
the CPC 1908 places a bar on the
institution of civil suits regarding matters
which a DRT or Appellate Tribunal has
been empowered to deal with under the
SARFAESI Act. Furthermore, no civil
court, can entertain a suit or proceeding, if
an aggrieved person has grievance against
any measures taken under Section 13(4) of
the SARFAESI Act.

g)
The
availability
of
an
alternative
efficacious
remedy
would
normally act as a bar against entertaining
a writ petitioner. Nevertheless, under
certain exceptional circumstances, a writ
petition can be entertained even if an
alternative efficacious remedy is available.
These circumstances being - a) where the
statutory authority has not acted in
accordance with the provisions of the
enactment in question, or in defiance of the
fundamental
principles
of
judicial
12 All. Satyanarayan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289
procedure, or has resorted to invoke the
provisions which are repealed; b) violation
of the principles of natural justice; and c)
where the vires of an Act is challenged.

h) The writ of certiorari can only
be exercised under extremely limited
circumstances and not every error of law
would warrant the issuance of the writ of
certiorari.
However,
where
a
lower
court/tribunal has failed to exercise its
jurisdiction, the same would call for
issuance of the writ of certiorari by the
High Court.

41. Financial institutions and
banks serve as the bedrock of our national
economy. They function as custodians of
public finances. It is undisputed that a
robust banking system is indispensable for
a nation's economic health. Consequently,
it becomes imperative for all stakeholders,
including the judiciary, to collaboratively
undertake measures to ensure the security
and efficacy of the banking system. The
SARFAESI Act stands as a pivotal
legislative instrument, endowing banks and
financial institutions with the requisite
authority to adeptly navigate the issue of
NPAs.
The
fundamental
objective
underpinning the SARFAESI Act is the
facilitation of the expeditious recovery of
outstanding dues, thereby circumventing
the need for unnecessarily protracted legal
proceedings. This assumes heightened
significance within the Indian context,
where
grappling
with
NPAs
has
consistently posed a formidable challenge
for financial institutions. By authorizing
lenders to proactively undertake measures
in the retrieval of their investments, the
SARFAESI Act assumes the role of a
safeguard, preserving the financial wellbeing of these institutions. The SARFAESI
Act also serves as a catalyst for instilling
responsible
borrowing
practices
and
functions as a deterrent against wilful
defaults. The multiplicity of superfluous
litigation, which prolongs the resolution of
non-performing
assets,
dilutes
and
undermines the overarching purpose of the
SARFAESI Act. It is incumbent upon all
stakeholders, including borrowers and the
judiciary, to ensure that frivolous petitions
do not impede the seamless progress of
recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to
the SARFAESI Act.
(Emphasis added)

14. When we examine the facts of the
present case in light of the law laid down in
the aforementioned cases, what comes to
light is that the petitioners claim to be
tenants in respect of some shops situated in
the building, which has been mortgaged by
the landlords with the opposite party no 6Punjab National Bank. The petitioners
claim to be the tenants in respect of the
various shops for past 60 years or more,
under oral agreements. The opposite parties
no. 7, 8 and 10 had taken loans from the
Bank in the years 2012 and 2015 and they
had mortgaged two properties, inducing the
property in which the shops in question are
situated. Upon a default having been
committed in repayment of the loan
amounts, the Bank filed an application
under Section 13(4) read with Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act on 21.03.2003. The
petitioners have approached this Court for
protecting their possession in respect of the
shops in question claiming that the shops
are in their tenancy created by oral
agreements.

15. The Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 has
been enacted by the State Legislature with
effect from 01.11.2021. Chapter II of the
aforesaid Act contains provisions regarding
tenancy. Section 4 falling in Chapter II of
the Act provides as follows: -
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"4. Tenancy agreement.-

(1) ...

(2) ...

(3) Where, in relation to a
tenancy created before the commencement
of this Act,-

(a) if an agreement in writing was
entered into between the landlord and the
tenant, they shall jointly present a copy thereof
to the Rent Authority within three months of the
commencement of this Act.

(b) if no agreement in writing was
entered into, the landlord and the tenant shall
enter into an agreement in writing with regard
to that tenancy and present the same to the Rent
Authority
within
three
months
of
the
commencement of this Act:

Provided that where the landlord or
the tenant fail to present jointly a copy of the
tenancy agreement or fail to reach an
agreement within specified period, such
landlord and tenant shall separately file the
particulars about such tenancy with the Rent
Authority within one month from the date of
expiry of period mentioned in clause (b) above,
in the form specified in First Schedule. If the
landlord has submitted his particulars within
the specified period but tenant fails to submit
such particulars, the landlord may file an
application for eviction on this ground alone:

Provided further that during such
eviction proceedings, the Rent Authority shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,
decide interim rent payable by the tenant
during such adjudication."

16. There is no averment in the entire writ
petition that after commencement of the
Tenancy Act, 2021 any agreement was entered
into between the petitioners and their landlord
or that upon failure of the landlord to enter into
any agreement any of the petitioners gave any
application
to
the
rent
authority
for
regularization of their tenancy. The petitioners
have not disclosed the monthly rents payable by
them and there is no pleading that the rents are
being paid regularly to the landlords. Thus there
is nothing on record to establish that the tenancy
of the petitioners is protected under the
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or
the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

17. When the petitioners are unable to
establish with the help of some cogent
material that their tenancy rights which
were created under an oral agreement, are
still continuing and are protected by any
provision of law which would have effect
in
spite
of
the
non-obstante
clause
contained in Section 35 of the SARFAESI
Act referred to above, the petitioners
cannot
invoke
the
extra-ordinary
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India
as
establishment
of
a
legally
enforceable right and infringement thereof
is a sine quo non for invoking the writ
jurisdiction of this Court.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion,
this Court is of the considered view that there is
no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 290
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ Tax No. 408 of 2021

M/S NS Papers Limited & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents