Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) through LRs & Anr. v. Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors.

Key Legal Principles

The important legal principles are:

(a) Proceedings under Section 14 of SARFAESI are essentially ministerial and not a full-fledged adjudicatory proceeding.

(b) The CMM/DM must verify compliance with the requirements specified in Section 14(1) and its provisos.

(c) Once the statutory requirements are satisfied, the CMM/DM is required to assist the secured creditor in obtaining possession.

(d) The CMM/DM cannot convert a Section 14 proceeding into a trial concerning substantive disputes between the secured creditor, borrower and third parties.

(e) An objection by a person claiming to be a tenant does not, by itself, justify keeping the Section 14 application indefinitely pending.

(f) Persons aggrieved by SARFAESI measures can pursue the statutory remedy under Section 17 before the DRT.

(g) Section 14 does not require the Magistrate to independently adjudicate the substantive validity of every tenancy or third-party claim.

Important limitation:

This judgment does not mean that every tenant can be removed through Section 14 irrespective of the nature of the tenancy.

The Supreme Court specifically considered the earlier decisions in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 1 and Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India, (2016) 3 SCC 762, and explained their applicability.

Therefore, a bank should distinguish between a genuine legally protected tenancy and a disputed or unsupported claim of tenancy.

Key Legal Principles (Kannada)

ಮುಖ್ಯ ತತ್ವಗಳು:

(a) SARFAESI Section 14 proceedings ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ ministerial proceedings ಆಗಿವೆ; ಅವು full-fledged adjudicatory proceedings ಅಲ್ಲ.

(b) CMM/DM Section 14(1) ಮತ್ತು ಅದರ provisosನಲ್ಲಿ ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಿದ statutory requirementsಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಬೇಕು.

(c) ಆ requirements ಪೂರೈಸಿದ ನಂತರ secured creditorಗೆ possession ಪಡೆಯಲು CMM/DM ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು.

(d) CMM/DM Section 14 proceeding ಅನ್ನು secured creditor, borrower ಮತ್ತು third parties ನಡುವಿನ substantive disputes ಕುರಿತು full trial ಆಗಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

(e) ತಾನು tenant ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ objection ಇದ್ದದ್ದರಿಂದ ಮಾತ್ರ Section 14 application ಅನ್ನು indefinitely pending ಇಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

(f) SARFAESI measuresನಿಂದ aggrieved ಆಗಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೆ Section 17 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ DRTಯ statutory remedy ಇದೆ.

(g) ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು tenancy ಅಥವಾ third-party claimನ substantive validity ಅನ್ನು Section 14 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ Magistrate ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರವಾಗಿ adjudicate ಮಾಡಬೇಕೆಂಬುದು ಕಾನೂನು ಅಲ್ಲ.

ಮುಖ್ಯ ಮಿತಿ:

ಈ ತೀರ್ಪು "ಯಾವುದೇ tenantನನ್ನೂ Section 14 ಮೂಲಕ ಹೊರಹಾಕಬಹುದು" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

Supreme Court Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2014) 6 SCC 1 ಮತ್ತು Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India, (2016) 3 SCC 762 ತೀರ್ಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿ ಅವುಗಳ applicabilityಯನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಿದೆ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ genuine legally protected tenancy ಮತ್ತು ಕೇವಲ possession delay ಮಾಡಲು ಮಾಡಲಾಗುವ unsupported tenancy claim ನಡುವಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸವನ್ನು ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕು.

Summary (English)

1. Facts

Religare Finvest Ltd. had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6 crore to the borrowers. The loan was secured by a registered mortgage over immovable property.

The borrowers defaulted and their account was classified as an NPA. Religare issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

Subsequently, Religare assigned its rights under the loan to Phoenix ARC Private Limited, which stepped into the shoes of the original secured creditor.

Phoenix ARC issued a fresh Section 13(2) notice demanding approximately Rs. 5.83 crore and thereafter took symbolic possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4).

Phoenix ARC then applied to the District Magistrate under Section 14 for assistance in obtaining physical possession.

A third party, Balkrishna Rama Tarle, claimed to be a tenant in respect of part of the secured property. He relied upon an earlier civil court order restraining one of the borrowers from dispossessing him.

The Additional District Magistrate declined to proceed with the Section 14 application and kept it pending, stating that the secured creditor should first terminate the alleged tenancy rights by following due process.

The Bombay High Court set aside that approach and directed the designated authority to proceed with the Section 14 application.

The alleged tenant approached the Supreme Court.

2. Legal Issue

The principal question was:

Whether the District Magistrate exercising powers under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can keep a Section 14 application pending on the ground that a third party claiming to be a tenant must first have his tenancy terminated by the secured creditor.

A related issue was:

Whether the District Magistrate, while dealing with a Section 14 application, is required to adjudicate disputes raised by borrowers or third parties concerning possession or tenancy rights over the secured property.

3. Court's Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge and upheld the Bombay High Court's direction to proceed with the Section 14 application.

The Court held that the powers exercised by the CMM/DM under Section 14 are essentially ministerial.

The CMM/DM is required to verify compliance with the statutory requirements contained in Section 14 and, once those requirements are satisfied, assist the secured creditor in obtaining possession.

The CMM/DM does not conduct a full adjudication of disputes between the borrower, secured creditor and third parties concerning the secured asset.

Such disputes can be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The Court further held that the Additional District Magistrate could not keep the Section 14 application pending merely on the ground that the secured creditor had not first instituted separate eviction proceedings against the person claiming to be a tenant.

However, the Court also clarified that where a genuine tenancy issue falls within the protection recognised by earlier Supreme Court decisions, the appropriate legal rights of the tenant must be considered in accordance with law.

4. Court's Reasoning

Section 14 provides a statutory mechanism to assist a secured creditor in obtaining physical possession of secured assets.

The secured creditor first approaches the CMM/DM with the required application and affidavit.

The proviso to Section 14(1) requires the authorised officer to make specific declarations concerning matters such as:

- the amount of financial assistance;

- existence of a valid and subsisting security interest;

- default;

- NPA classification;

- service of the Section 13(2) notice;

- consideration of the borrower's representation;

- non-payment of the dues; and

- compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules.

The Magistrate's task is to satisfy himself regarding these statutory requirements.

The Court emphasised that Section 14 proceedings are not intended to become a forum for adjudicating every dispute raised by the borrower or a third party.

The SARFAESI Act provides Section 17 as the statutory remedy for an aggrieved person.

The Court also relied on its earlier decisions concerning the limited and ministerial nature of Section 14 proceedings.

The existence of a third-party claim therefore does not automatically give the CMM/DM jurisdiction to decide the substantive rights of that third party in the Section 14 proceeding.

At the same time, the Court recognised that tenancy rights cannot simply be ignored in every case. The legal protection available to a genuine tenant depends upon the applicable law and the nature and timing of the tenancy.

Thus, the Court distinguished between:

(a) the Magistrate's limited function under Section 14; and

(b) substantive adjudication of tenancy or other third-party rights.

5. Relevance to Co-operative Banks

This judgment is highly useful to co-operative banks because physical possession of mortgaged properties is often the most difficult practical stage of SARFAESI recovery.

Borrowers or third parties frequently attempt to delay Section 14 proceedings by raising claims of:

- tenancy;

- possession;

- prior agreements;

- third-party rights;

- civil court orders;

- title disputes; or

- alleged independent rights in the property.

This judgment supports the proposition that the Section 14 authority is not the appropriate forum to conduct a full trial on such disputes.

For a co-operative bank, this is particularly useful when the District Magistrate or CMM is asked to take possession and a third party attempts to prevent the proceeding from moving forward merely by asserting a tenancy or other right.

6. Practical Application

Suppose a co-operative bank has a valid mortgage, the borrower has defaulted, the account has become NPA, the Section 13(2) notice has been properly served, the bank has complied with the statutory requirements and the bank applies under Section 14 for physical possession.

A person occupying the property then claims:

"I am a tenant. Therefore, the District Magistrate cannot proceed under Section 14 until the bank first files a separate eviction case against me."

The bank can rely on Balkrishna Rama Tarle to submit that the Section 14 authority cannot simply keep the application pending and convert Section 14 proceedings into an eviction adjudication.

The Magistrate must examine the statutory requirements under Section 14 and proceed according to the Act.

If the third party has a legally sustainable objection to the SARFAESI measure, the statutory remedy is available before the DRT under Section 17.

The judgment is practically useful for a co-operative bank's lawyer in:

1. Section 14 possession applications.

2. Cases involving alleged tenants occupying secured properties.

3. Third-party objections before the District Magistrate/CMM.

4. Writ petitions challenging Section 14 proceedings.

5. Preventing unnecessary delay in physical possession.

6. Responding to attempts to convert Section 14 proceedings into civil trials.

7. Distinguishing genuine tenancy rights from unsupported possession claims.

8. Supporting the proposition that Section 14 is a ministerial mechanism rather than a full adjudicatory proceeding.

A bank should nevertheless carefully verify the nature and date of the alleged tenancy. A tenancy created before the mortgage, a tenancy protected by applicable rent-control legislation, or a tenancy otherwise recognised by law may raise different legal issues. The judgment should therefore be used together with the Supreme Court's tenancy-related SARFAESI decisions rather than as an absolute rule that every occupant can be dispossessed under Section 14.

Summary (Kannada)

1. ವಾಸ್ತವಾಂಶಗಳು

Religare Finvest Ltd. ಸಾಲಗಾರರಿಗೆ ರೂ.6 ಕೋಟಿಯ ಸಾಲ ನೀಡಿತ್ತು. ಈ ಸಾಲಕ್ಕೆ immovable property ಮೇಲೆ registered mortgage securityಯಾಗಿ ಇತ್ತು.

ಸಾಲಗಾರರು default ಮಾಡಿದ ನಂತರ ಅವರ account NPA ಆಗಿ ವರ್ಗೀಕರಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. Religare Section 13(2) ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ demand notice ನೀಡಿತು.

ನಂತರ Religare ತನ್ನ loan rights ಅನ್ನು Phoenix ARC Private Limitedಗೆ assign ಮಾಡಿತು. Phoenix ARC secured creditorನ ಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂತು.

Phoenix ARC ಸುಮಾರು ರೂ.5.83 ಕೋಟಿಯ ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿಸುವಂತೆ Section 13(2) notice ನೀಡಿ, ನಂತರ Section 13(4) ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ secured assets ಮೇಲೆ symbolic possession ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿತು.

ನಂತರ physical possession ಪಡೆಯಲು Phoenix ARC Section 14 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ District Magistrate ಅವರನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಿತು.

ಈ ನಡುವೆ Balkrishna Rama Tarle ಎಂಬ ಮೂರನೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ secured propertyಯ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ತಾನು tenant ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡನು.

ಅವನು ಹಿಂದಿನ civil court order ಒಂದನ್ನು ಅವಲಂಬಿಸಿದ್ದನು. ಆ orderನಲ್ಲಿ borrower ತನ್ನನ್ನು premisesನಿಂದ dispossess ಮಾಡಬಾರದು ಎಂದು restrain ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.

Additional District Magistrate, alleged tenancy rights ಅನ್ನು secured creditor ಮೊದಲು due process ಮೂಲಕ terminate ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ Section 14 application ಅನ್ನು pending ಇಟ್ಟರು.

Bombay High Court ಈ ವಿಧಾನವನ್ನು set aside ಮಾಡಿ Section 14 application ಅನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮುಂದುವರಿಸಲು ನಿರ್ದೇಶಿಸಿತು.

ಅದನ್ನು alleged tenant Supreme Courtನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದನು.

2. ಕಾನೂನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ

Section 14 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ District Magistrate ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುವಾಗ, ಮೂರನೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ತಾನು tenant ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ secured creditor ಮೊದಲು tenancy terminate ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ proceedings ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ Section 14 application ಅನ್ನು pending ಇಡಬಹುದೇ?

ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ:

Section 14 application ವಿಚಾರಿಸುವಾಗ borrower ಅಥವಾ third party possession/tenancy rights ಕುರಿತು ಎತ್ತುವ substantive disputesಗಳನ್ನು District Magistrate adjudicate ಮಾಡಬೇಕೇ?

3. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ತೀರ್ಪು

Supreme Court challenge ಅನ್ನು dismiss ಮಾಡಿ Bombay High Courtನ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು uphold ಮಾಡಿತು.

Section 14 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ CMM/DM exercise ಮಾಡುವ power ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿ ministerial nature ಹೊಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದು Court ಹೇಳಿತು.

CMM/DM Section 14ರ statutory requirements ಪೂರೈಸಲಾಗಿದೆಯೇ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ, ಅವು ಪೂರೈಸಿದ ನಂತರ secured creditorಗೆ possession ಪಡೆಯಲು ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು.

Borrower, secured creditor ಮತ್ತು third parties ನಡುವೆ secured property ಕುರಿತು ಇರುವ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು substantive dispute ಅನ್ನು CMM/DM Section 14 proceedingsನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ adjudicate ಮಾಡುವ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

ಅಂತಹ disputesಗೆ SARFAESI Section 17 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ DRTಯ statutory remedy ಇದೆ.

ಮೂರನೇ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ tenant ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ ಎಂಬ ಒಂದೇ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ Additional District Magistrate Section 14 application ಅನ್ನು indefinitely pending ಇಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು Court ಹೇಳಿತು.

ಆದರೆ genuine tenancy rights ಇದ್ದರೆ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕೆಂಬುದನ್ನೂ Court ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟಪಡಿಸಿತು.

4. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಕಾರಣಗಳು

Section 14 secured creditorಗೆ secured assetನ physical possession ಪಡೆಯಲು ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡುವ statutory mechanism ಆಗಿದೆ.

Secured creditor ಅಗತ್ಯ application ಮತ್ತು affidavit ಜೊತೆಗೆ CMM/DM ಅವರನ್ನು ಸಂಪರ್ಕಿಸಬೇಕು.

Section 14(1) proviso ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ authorised officer ಕೆಳಗಿನ ವಿಷಯಗಳನ್ನು affirm ಮಾಡಬೇಕು:

- financial assistanceನ ಮೊತ್ತ;

- valid ಮತ್ತು subsisting security interest;

- borrower default;

- NPA classification;

- Section 13(2) notice service;

- borrower's objection/representation consideration;

- dues ಪಾವತಿಯಾಗದಿರುವುದು;

- SARFAESI Act ಮತ್ತು Rules compliance.

Magistrate ಈ statutory requirementsಗಳನ್ನು satisfy ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು order ನೀಡಬೇಕು.

Section 14 proceeding borrower ಅಥವಾ third party ಎತ್ತುವ ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು dispute ಬಗ್ಗೆ full trial ನಡೆಸುವ forum ಅಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು Court ಒತ್ತಿಹೇಳಿತು.

SARFAESI Act Section 17 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ aggrieved personಗೆ statutory remedy ಒದಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.

ಹೀಗಾಗಿ third party claim ಇದೆ ಎಂಬ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಮಾತ್ರ CMM/DMಗೆ ಆ third partyಯ substantive rights ಅನ್ನು Section 14 proceedingsನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ adjudicate ಮಾಡುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ದೊರೆಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಆದರೆ tenancy rights ಅನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಂದು ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲೂ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಲಕ್ಷಿಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದೂ Court ಹೇಳಲಿಲ್ಲ.

Genuine tenancy ಯಾವಾಗ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾಯಿತು, ಯಾವ ಕಾನೂನು ಅದರ ಮೇಲೆ ಅನ್ವಯಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು tenantಗೆ ಯಾವ statutory protection ಇದೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು ಸಂಬಂಧಿತ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕು.

5. ಸಹಕಾರಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕುಗಳಿಗೆ ಇರುವ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತತೆ

ಈ ತೀರ್ಪು co-operative banksಗೆ ಬಹಳ ಪ್ರಾಯೋಗಿಕವಾಗಿದೆ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ SARFAESI recoveryಯಲ್ಲಿ mortgaged propertyಯ physical possession ಪಡೆಯುವುದು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಹಂತವಾಗಿದೆ.

Borrower ಅಥವಾ third partyಗಳು ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಕೆಳಗಿನ ಕಾರಣಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳಿ Section 14 proceedings ವಿಳಂಬ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಬಹುದು:

- tenancy;

- possession;

- prior agreement;

- third-party rights;

- civil court orders;

- title dispute;

- independent property rights.

Section 14 authority ಇಂತಹ disputes ಬಗ್ಗೆ full civil trial ನಡೆಸುವ forum ಅಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬ principleಗೆ ಈ judgment ಬೆಂಬಲ ನೀಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ co-operative bank Section 14 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ possession ಕೇಳಿದಾಗ, third party ತಾನು tenant ಅಥವಾ ಬೇರೆ right holder ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ proceeding ಮುಂದುವರಿಯದಂತೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸಿದರೆ ಈ judgment ಉಪಯುಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ.

6. ಪ್ರಾಯೋಗಿಕ ಬಳಕೆ

ಒಂದು co-operative bank valid mortgage ಹೊಂದಿದೆ, borrower default ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾನೆ, account NPA ಆಗಿದೆ, Section 13(2) notice ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು Section 14 statutory requirements ಪೂರೈಸಿ bank physical possessionಗಾಗಿ application ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬಹುದು.

ಆ propertyಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯೊಬ್ಬನು:

"ನಾನು tenant. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ District Magistrate Section 14 proceeding ಮುಂದುವರಿಸುವ ಮೊದಲು bank ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ eviction case ದಾಖಲಿಸಬೇಕು"

ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರೆ, Section 14 application ಅನ್ನು ಕೇವಲ ಆ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ pending ಇಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬ ವಾದಕ್ಕೆ Balkrishna Rama Tarle ಉಪಯುಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ.

Magistrate Section 14ರ statutory requirements ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿ ಕಾಯ್ದೆಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮುಂದುವರಿಯಬೇಕು.

Third partyಗೆ SARFAESI measure ವಿರುದ್ಧ legally sustainable objection ಇದ್ದರೆ Section 17 ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ DRTಯಲ್ಲಿ remedy ಪಡೆಯಬಹುದು.

ಸಹಕಾರಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ವಕೀಲರಿಗೆ ಈ judgment ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ:

1. Section 14 possession applications.

2. Secured propertyಯಲ್ಲಿ tenant claim ಇರುವ cases.

3. District Magistrate/CMM ಮುಂದೆ third-party objections.

4. Section 14 proceedings ವಿರುದ್ಧ writ petitions.

5. Physical possession ಪಡೆಯುವಲ್ಲಿ unnecessary delay ತಡೆಯಲು.

6. Section 14 proceeding ಅನ್ನು civil trial ಆಗಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಕ್ಕೆ ಉತ್ತರಿಸಲು.

7. Genuine tenancy rights ಮತ್ತು unsupported possession claims ನಡುವಿನ ವ್ಯತ್ಯಾಸ ತೋರಿಸಲು.

8. Section 14 ministerial mechanism ಎಂಬ principle support ಮಾಡಲು.

ಆದರೆ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ alleged tenancyಯ nature ಮತ್ತು date ಅನ್ನು ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆಯಿಂದ ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಬೇಕು. Mortgageಗಿಂತ ಮೊದಲು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾದ tenancy, applicable rent-control legislationನಿಂದ protected tenancy ಅಥವಾ ಕಾನೂನಿನಿಂದ ಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿರುವ tenancy ಬೇರೆ legal issuesಗಳನ್ನು ಹುಟ್ಟುಹಾಕಬಹುದು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು "ಪ್ರತಿಯೊಬ್ಬ occupantನನ್ನೂ Section 14 ಮೂಲಕ dispossess ಮಾಡಬಹುದು" ಎಂಬ absolute rule ಆಗಿ ಬಳಸಬಾರದು.