Tenants in a Bank-Auction Property: Who Can Stay, and for How Long
Auction Dunia · Law and portal facts checked as of · 8 min read
The short answer
A tenant whose valid lease began before the mortgage keeps the property for the term of that lease, and the buyer steps in as landlord. A lease made after the mortgage binds the bank only if it meets Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act and came before the bank’s s.13(2) notice, and an oral or unregistered tenancy cannot run for more than a year. Disputed claims are decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, not by the magistrate who orders possession.
Key points
- The first question is the date: was the tenancy created before the mortgage, after the mortgage but before the s.13(2) notice, or after that notice (Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, SC, 2019)?
- The second is the paper: a lease for more than a year must be registered; an oral or unregistered tenancy gives no right to stay for more than a year (Transfer of Property Act s.107; Harshad Govardhan Sondagar, SC, 2014).
- After the s.13(2) notice, the borrower cannot lease the property without the bank’s written consent (SARFAESI Act s.13(13)).
- Tenancy claims are examined by the DRT under s.17(4A), on an application in Appendix X; the magistrate under s.14 does not decide them (Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC, SC, 2022).
- A tenant who claims protection must prove it with records — rent receipts, tax and utility bills (PNB Housing Finance v. Manoj Saha, SC, 2025).
Why the tenancy question decides possession
Many bank-auction properties are sold with symbolic possession: the bank has served and published its possession notice, but someone still lives in or uses the property. Sometimes that is the borrower’s family; sometimes it is a tenant. Whether a tenant can stay, and for how long, depends on when and how the tenancy was created — not on how long the occupant has been there.
A buyer receives the borrower’s title and no better (SARFAESI Act s.13(6)). If the borrower had granted a lease that binds the bank, it binds the buyer too, and the buyer becomes the landlord for the rest of its term. If it does not bind the bank, the bank can seek possession through the Section 14 process.
The test, in three dates and one document
| When the tenancy began | What the law says | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Before the mortgage | A valid tenancy is protected; the bank cannot disturb it, and the lease ends only as the Transfer of Property Act provides. The bank is taken to have accepted that risk when it lent. | Bajarang (SC, 2019); TPA s.111 |
| After the mortgage, before the s.13(2) notice | Binds the bank only if it meets the conditions in TPA s.65A — for example, made in the ordinary course of management, at the best rent reasonably obtainable, with no premium and no renewal covenant — and the mortgage deed does not forbid it. | TPA s.65A; Bajarang (SC, 2019) |
| After the s.13(2) notice | The borrower may not lease the property without the bank’s prior written consent. A tenancy created after the notice can be rejected by the DRT. | SARFAESI s.13(13), s.17(4A) |
The document then sets the length. A lease for more than a year, or from year to year, can be made only by a registered instrument (TPA s.107). A tenant relying on an unregistered agreement or an oral arrangement is not entitled to possession for more than a year from the agreement or from being let into possession (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co., Supreme Court, 2014).
Because the borrower cannot renew or grant a tenancy after the s.13(2) notice, an oral or unregistered tenancy cannot be carried forward past that point. The Supreme Court has held that an occupant whose tenancy has run out in this way is a tenant at sufferance — someone who stays on after the lawful term has ended — with no right that state rent law can protect against the bank (Bajarang, 2019). In 2025 the Court read that judgment as limiting such a tenancy to one year from the s.13(2) notice, after which the occupant is a tenant at sufferance (PNB Housing Finance v. Manoj Saha, 2025 INSC 847, para 18).
How the law got here
- 1
2014 — a valid lease must be respected
If a lessee, not the borrower, is in lawful possession under a valid lease, the magistrate cannot order possession to the bank until that lease has ended. A lease longer than a year needs a registered instrument.
Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (SC, 2014)
- 2
2016 — rent law and SARFAESI
The Court held that a tenant protected by state rent legislation could not be removed through SARFAESI, and that oral tenancy can be proved by showing occupation.
Vishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India (SC, 2016)
- 3
2016 — the DRT is given the question
Parliament added s.17(4A): the DRT may examine whether a claimed lease has expired, is contrary to TPA s.65A, is contrary to the mortgage terms, or was created after the bank’s demand notice.
SARFAESI s.17(4A); Rule 13A, Appendix X
- 4
2019 — the test is reconciled
A three-judge bench kept the respect for genuine tenancies but narrowed Kalsaria: pre-mortgage tenancies are protected; post-mortgage ones must meet s.65A; unregistered ones cannot exceed the statutory period; and rent law does not protect a tenant at sufferance against the bank.
Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (SC, 2019)
- 5
2022 — where the dispute is heard
The magistrate’s role under s.14 is ministerial: check the bank’s affidavit and assist with possession. A third party claiming tenancy must raise it before the DRT under s.17.
Balkrishna Rama Tarle (SC, 2022)
- 6
2025 — proof
An occupant who claimed a long tenancy but could produce no rent receipt, tax receipt or electricity bill showing occupation before the s.13(2) notice could not resist the bank’s possession. The onus of proving the tenancy is on the person claiming it.
PNB Housing Finance v. Manoj Saha (SC, 2025 INSC 847, paras 18, 23)
Where state rent law fits
Karnataka and Telangana each have their own rent legislation, and the Supreme Court has said that genuine tenancy rights under a state rent law are to be respected in appropriate cases (Bajarang, 2019). That protection starts from a valid tenancy: it does not revive a tenancy that ended under the tests above. Whether a particular tenancy falls under the state rent law is a question for a local advocate on the documents, not one to assume from a listing.
Where a tenancy claim is decided
A person claiming a tenancy applies to the DRT under s.17, in the form in Appendix X, with the fee in Rule 13 (Rule 13A). The form asks for the lease deed, its date and registration, the rent, the period, and whether the bank’s permission was taken — the same points the tests turn on.
The magistrate who hears the bank’s Section 14 application does not adjudicate tenancy or title (Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC, Supreme Court, 2022). The Act sets 30 days, extendable to 60, for the magistrate’s order, a limit the Supreme Court has held to be directory (our Section 14 guide explains); a DRT application has its own 60-day to four-month frame (s.14, s.17(5)). Actual handover can take longer than either, and a tenancy claim raised late can add months.
What to check before you bid
- The possession type in the sale notice, and any line about occupants or tenants.
- The possession notice and the bank’s records of who was in occupation, if the Authorised Officer will share them.
- The encumbrance certificate, for a registered lease and its date against the mortgage date.
- The mortgage deed or the bank’s title report, for any clause forbidding leases.
- The date of the s.13(2) notice, which the sale notice or the bank can confirm.
- Any pending DRT, civil court or rent-court proceeding over the property, in the litigation search.
A site visit helps, made with courtesy to whoever lives there; their position is a question of documents, settled by the bank and the tribunal, not on the doorstep. What none of these checks can do is predict how a tribunal will weigh a claim raised after the auction.
What the auction route cannot promise
- No buyer, bank or adviser can guarantee vacant possession of an occupied property; a valid lease binds the buyer for its term.
- Physical possession depends on the bank’s Section 14 application; the statutory 30 to 60 days binds the magistrate’s order, and actual handover can take considerably longer.
- A tenancy claim can be raised at the DRT after you have won, and its outcome depends on evidence you may not see before the bid.
- Whether state rent law applies to a particular tenancy is a question of fact and local law, decided case by case.
Questions buyers ask
Sources
Statutes, rules and judgments first. Checked as of 19 October 2026; the law and portal practice change, so confirm against the source before relying on a detail.
- StatuteSARFAESI Act, 2002 — s.17, including s.17(4A) on tenancy claims
- StatuteSARFAESI Act, 2002 — full text (ss.13(6), 13(13), 14)
- RulesSecurity Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 — Rule 13A and Appendix X
- JudgmentBajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India, Supreme Court, 11 Sep 2019
- JudgmentBalkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd, Supreme Court, 26 Sep 2022
- JudgmentPNB Housing Finance v. Manoj Saha, Supreme Court, 15 Jul 2025 (2025 INSC 847)
- SecondaryPNB Housing Finance v. Manoj Saha — report
This guide explains the law and the process in general terms. It is not advice on any specific property; that belongs in a due diligence report on the property itself.
A specific property in mind?
Tell us what you are buying it for, and we will tell you what needs checking before you pay EMD.
Talk to the desk