SANJIVKUMAR SURAJPRAKASH AGGARWAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 2 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jun 30, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               I.A. 2 OF 2016
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5401 OF 2016
                 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19616 OF 2015]

      SANJIVKUMAR SURAJPRAKASH AGGARWAL             Appellant(s)

                                  VERSUS

      STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.                  Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.
2.    The dispute in this appeal is whether the tenancy  created  in  favour
of the appellant is a sham one or not.  It is not in dispute that  there  is
no adjudication on this aspect.  Under Section  14  of  the  SARAFAESI  Act,
this aspect can be adjudicated before  the  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate,
Esplanade Court, Mumbai.
3.    Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for  the  Bank,
submits that the Magistrate,  in  fact,  had  gone  into  the  aspect  while
deciding the Invervention Application.
4.    We do not think that the same would be sufficient in adjudicating  the
issue  regarding  tenancy.   In  our   opinion,   an   inquiry,   with   the
participation of the appellant, would be in the fitness and fairness of  the
adjudication.   Therefore,  this  appeal  is  disposed  of,  directing   the
Magistrate to conduct an inquiry with  regard  to  the  genuineness  of  the
tenancy created by the third respondent with  the  appellant.   The  parties
shall appear before the Magistrate on 01.08.2016  and  the  Magistrate  will
conduct the required inquiry and complete the proceedings within  one  month
thereafter.
5.    Needless to say, the parties shall extend their  cooperation,  without
praying for unnecessary adjournments, so that  the  matter  can  be  decided
within the stipulated time.
6.    We make  it  clear  that  the  pendency  of  the  inquiry  before  the
Magistrate shall not stand in the way of the  Bank  proceeding  against  the
landlord in accordance with law.
7.    I. A. No. 2 for directions is disposed of.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                       [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

                                                   .......................J.
                                                [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

      New Delhi;
      JUNE 30, 2016.