A tenant in Mumbai won a big case on January 20, 2026. The court decided he doesn't have to pay a deposit for an appeal about a flat he was promised.
In this case, Ishtiyaque Aslam Khan was up against DCB Bank. He wasn't someone who borrowed money or promised to pay back someone else's loan, but a tenant. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in Mumbai had told him to deposit 40% of a loan amount to appeal a decision. This was about a flat that was promised to him but also sold to someone else.
Khan's lawyer argued that since Khan wasn't someone who borrowed money or promised to pay back someone else's loan, he shouldn't have to pay the deposit. They referred to previous cases, including a 2017 decision from the Bombay High Court and others from the Delhi High Court, which supported this view.
"When the person affected is neither the borrower nor the guarantor, the condition of pre-deposit cannot be imposed."
Khan claimed that the developer, Respondent No. 4, committed fraud. The developer promised him Flat No. 403 in a redevelopment project but sold it to others who got a loan from DCB Bank. Khan wanted the flat he was promised.
Judges Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat agreed with Khan. They said he didn't need to deposit the money because he wasn't responsible for the loan. The court allowed Khan's appeal to continue without the deposit condition.
The court ordered the DRAT to quickly consider Khan's appeal. They want the issue resolved within four weeks after the court's order is presented to the DRAT.
This decision is a win for tenants like Khan, who find themselves caught up in disputes over property and loans they never signed up for.
