AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Bhasin, J
Today, during the course of hearing it was admitted from both the sides that impugned order rejecting the interim relief to the appellants was passed at the time when the Bank had not even filed its response to the Securitization Application of the appellants. There are observations regarding collusion etc. between the appellants and the Bank's borrower in the impugned order. The learned DRT has also observed that appellants are in fact not even in possession of the property in which they claim to be in possession.
Learned Counsel for the parties agree that instead of this Tribunal making any comments on all these aspects the learned DRT can be asked to decide the interim prayer of the appellants afresh after taking into consideration the written statement to S.A. which is now stated to be filed.
In view of the aforesaid joint submissions made, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the DRT for taking a fresh decision on the interim prayer of the appellants who are claiming themselves to be the tenants in part of the larger property No. 65/17 New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
Order which will now be passed by the DRT will be passed uninfluenced by the earlier order of DRT which was under challenge in this appeal. As far as the interim relief request is concerned, the same can be made before DRT and it will be for the DRT to consider if any immediate protection needs to be given to the appellants against their dispossession or not.
Appellants will also be at liberty to request for preponement of the date of hearing before the DRT which is stated to be now fixed in December, 2018.