29 April,2026 10:51 AM IST | Mumbai | Samiullah Khan
Screen grabs of the video from the day KHFL representatives and police visited Atharva Landmark to take possession of the disputed flats. Pics/BY Special Arrangement
In a relief for homeowners in Malad East, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) on April 24 stayed Khush Housing Finance Private Limited's (KHFL) attempts to take possession of three properties at Atharva Landmark Co-operative Housing Society, citing procedural lapses under the SARFAESI Act.
The tribunal restrained the finance company, its officers and assignees from proceeding further against the properties, which include two residential flats and a parking podium. On April 3, the finance company, with the help of the local police, tried to evict the homeowners.
Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson of DRAT Mumbai, passed two orders:
>> A common order covering Flat No. 1201 (owned by Raj Chandresh Sheth) and Flat No. 301 (owned by Anilgiri Tulsigiri Goswami)
>> A separate order covering Office Nos. 201, 202 and 203 on the second floor (parking podium, D Wing)
>> All interim applications were allowed, and KHFL has been restrained from taking possession under SARFAESI proceedings
Atharva Landmark Co-operative Housing Society in Malad East, where residents have alleged fraud and illegal possession attempts by a housing finance firm. Pic/Nimesh Dave
The case relates to two flats in Atharva Landmark, Poddar Road, Malad East:
>> Flat No. 1201 (12th floor)
>> Flat No. 301 (3rd floor)
The appellants said they were bona fide purchasers who bought the flats in 2019 and 2020 through registered conveyance deeds from the developer.
KHFL, however, argued that the developer had mortgaged multiple flats, including these units, in April 2018 - prior to the buyers' purchase.
Advocates Jay Rajpopat and Akshit Kothari, representing the society and flat owners, confirmed the order but declined detailed comment.
Jagdish Rajpopat, Chairman of Atharva Landmark CHSL, said: "We have 52 families who purchased their homes honestly. This order gives them breathing space. The fight continues."
The appellants challenged the legality of the possession process, arguing that:
>> The affidavit filed before the Magistrate did not declare compliance with mandatory SARFAESI provisions
>> This violated Section 14 requirements, which mandate strict procedural compliance before possession
>> The respondent's counsel admitted that the affidavit lacked explicit mention of compliance but argued that the registered mortgage itself constituted public notice
The DRAT noted:
>> Absence of mandatory declaration in the affidavit is a serious procedural lapse
>> Compliance under Section 14 is essential before authorising possession
>> The appellants established a prima facie case
The tribunal further observed:
>> The flats are occupied residential properties
>> Forcible possession would cause irreparable harm
>> The balance of convenience lies in favour of the homebuyers
mid-day had earlier reported on April 10 that residents accused the finance firm of forgery and illegal possession attempts despite court protection.
Indian law that empowers banks and financial institutions to recover non-performing assets (NPAs) without court intervention by seizing and auctioning the secured assets of defaulting borrowers
The tribunal:
>> Restrained KHFL and its representatives from taking possession
>> Stayed further SARFAESI action against the properties
>> The matter will next be heard on September 17, 2026
>> 3 properties protected from possession
>> 2 residential flats + 1 parking podium covered
>> Purchases made in 2019-2020
>> Alleged mortgage dated April 2018
>> Next hearing: September 17, 2026
