TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee-owner can create a tenancy or transfer possession or create third party rights to defeat an ultimate order of taking over possession under the Act, 2002 and Rules, 2013. It is pertinent to mention that the expression ‘attachment’ is defined under Section 2(d) of Act, 2002 to mean prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property by an order issued under Chapter III. Though in the present case, it has been averred that the tenancy had been orally created on 01st June, 2013, yet this Court is of the view that the alleged oral tenancy would create no right either in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.2 as the lease deed in question was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.2-tenant. 2. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that taking over of possession by respondent No.1 was contrary to Rule 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013, (for short Rules, 2013 ) formulated by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Clause (ee) of Subsection (2) of Section 73 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short Act, 2002 ). Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2013 reads as under:- 5. Manner of taking possession of immovable property- xxx xxx xxx (3) Where the immovable property confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o so by the undersigned. Relied upon documents are mentioned in Annexure 'A'. 5. On 24th September, 2013, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 5(5) of the Act, 2002. 6. On 26th December, 2013, according to petitioner, registered lease deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2. The relevant provisions of the lease deed are reproduced hereinbelow:- 1. That the LESSOR hereby demises unto the LESSEE all that the Demises Premises, for a total period of 3 (Three) years commencing from 01.06.2013. The LESSOR has delivered the vacant possession of the Demises Premises to the LESSEE and the LESSEE paying therefore unto the LESSOR during the said period a monthly rent as provided herein below to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the properties made under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the PML Act and this order shall (a) continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and (b) become final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 8 or Section 58B or sub-section (2A) of Section 60 by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. On 14th March, 2014, a notice of eviction was issued by respondent No.1 and possession of the property in question was taken over. 9. The intent and object of the Act, 2002 is to prevent money- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order issued under Chapter III. 12. Though in the present case, it has been averred that the tenancy had been orally created on 01st June, 2013, yet this Court is of the view that the alleged oral tenancy would create no right either in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.2 as the lease deed in question was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In Santosh Jayaswal and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 520 the Supreme Court has held that since the duration of lease is more than a year, it is an instrument and compulsorily registrable by operation of Section 18(1)(c) of the Registration Act and liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, it cannot be acted upon un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hence, the grant of sub-lease is contrary to the order of status quo. Any act done on the teeth of the order of status quo is clearly illegal. All actions including the grant of sub-lease are clearly illegal . xxx xxx xxx 31. The parties are relegated to the position as on 15-9- 1988. Somani Builders are hereby directed to deliver vacant possession to the Special Officer within one month from today . (iii) In Surjit Singh vs. Harbans Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 50, it has been held as under:- 4. .In defiance of the restraint order, the alienation/assignment was made. If we were to let it go as such, it would defeat the ends of justice and the prevalent public policy. When the court intends a particular state of affai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
