Judgment : P.K. MISRA, J. Heard Mr. kasthuri Rangan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.Balasubramaniam, special Government pleader who had been requested to appear in this case as the only question to be decided relates to payment of court Fees as per the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter called “ the Rules”). 2. in order to appreciate the contentions, certain facts may he noticed in brief; United Bank of India after issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”) to the borrower present second respondent, took measures under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act by taking symbolic possession of several properties which had been purportedly mortgaged by the second respondent with the first respondent. At that stage, the present petitioner who claims right, title and interest over a portion of one of the properties, was corresponding with the bank indicating that he had purchased a portion of the property in a suit for specific performance of contract to which vendor of the second respondent was a party. On the aforesaid basis, the present petitioner requested the Bank to release that portion of the property claimed by him. However, the Bank advised the petitioner at that stage to file appropriate application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the petitioner filed SASR No.444 of 2009. since the petitioner was concerned only with a portion of property and in respect of properties which are the subject matter of measures taken under Section 13 (4) of the SARFESI Act, he had given the proportionate valuation of the portion claimed by him and paid a court fee of Rs.2,750/- 3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, however, called upon the petitioner to pay the court fees on the entire amount due to the Bank and not on the proportionate value of the property claimed by the present petitioner. Since there was a need for urgent interim orders, the petitioner deposited under protest the amount indicated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal but filed immediately an appeal against such order before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which however, confirmed the order. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is in question it this writ petition. 4. The only question raised, relates to the payment of court fees payable under such circumstances. 5. The order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is in question it this writ petition. 4. The only question raised, relates to the payment of court fees payable under such circumstances. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner had submitted before the Tribunal that the particular person who is a third party to the transaction with the Bank and who is aggrieved by any action and measures taken under Section 13(2) and section 13 (4), has only interest in that part of the property claimed by him. It was therefore, submitted by him that since the poison who is claiming right, confines his claim to a particular property or a particular portion of the property, it could not be said that so far as he was concerned, entire amount was payable. On the other hand, in such a case it should be interpreted to mean that the proportionate amount due by taking into account the value of the property concerned. The interpretation given by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is to the effect that the entire debt due from the borrower must be taken into account to calculate the Court Fees payable. 6. However in the present petition he has slightly shifted his submission by first contending that since the petitioner is totally unconcerned with the “debt” and is a lawful owner claiming right and title even before creation of the security, the court fee payable is not covered under entries (a) to (d)of Rule 13(2) but covered under entry (c) of Rule 13(2). He has submitted that the submission made before the Tribunal which was not accepted can be considered only as an alternate submission, if the first submission is not acceptable. 7. The learned special Government pleader has however submitted that the question of calculating the Court fee on proportionate value of the property claimed by a third party is not contemplated in the Rules. 8. Section 13(2), section 13(4) section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act as well as Rule 12(1) and sub Rule 2 of 13 of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, hereinafter called Rules being relevant are extracted hereunder; “Section 13. 8. Section 13(2), section 13(4) section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act as well as Rule 12(1) and sub Rule 2 of 13 of security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, hereinafter called Rules being relevant are extracted hereunder; “Section 13. Enforcement of security Interest-(2) where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt of any installment thereof, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days form the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under sub-section(4)”. Section 13(4): In case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in sub-section (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt, namely:- .(a) take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realizing the secured asset; .(b) take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease assignment or sale for realising the secured asset; Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt; Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt. .(c) appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager), to mange the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor; .(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt. Section 17. Section 17. Right to appeal.-(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measure referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this chapter, (may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed) to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken: [Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower] [Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section] Rule 12. Application to the Tribunal/ Appellate Tribunal. .(1) Any Application to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17 shall be, as nearly as possible, in the form given in Appendix VII to the rules. .(2) Any application to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act shall be, as really as possible, in the form given in Appendix VIII to the said rules. Any appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act shall be, as nearly as possible, in the form given in Appendix IX to the said rules.” “R.13. Fees for applications and appeals under Section 17 and 18 of the Act. (2) The amount of the fee payable shall be as follows TABLE 9. A perusal of the provisions makes it clear that the expression “debtor” includes guarantor. It is thus obvious that if a debtor or a guarantor is aggrieved by any section under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, he has remedy to file an appeal as contemplated under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, against any such measures as referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13. It is obvious that in such a case borrower or a guarantor is concerned with the entire debt payable to the secured creditor in respect of such application, the Court fees would be payable either under entry 1(a) or (b) of Rule 13 (2). It is obvious that in such a case borrower or a guarantor is concerned with the entire debt payable to the secured creditor in respect of such application, the Court fees would be payable either under entry 1(a) or (b) of Rule 13 (2). Apart from the borrower, a third party who is not a borrower may also be aggrieved by any measure taken by the secure creditor as in the present case, where the petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of the property in question and mortgaged by the borrower in favour of the Bank in respect of the property belonging to the present petitioner is of no consequence so far as he is concerned. He is not at all concerned with the “amount of debt due” of for that matter with the “debt” as such. He is aggrieved because he is the owner of the property totally unconcerned with the “debt” and yet his property is at peril. Therefore, court Fee cannot be assessed on his application by applying either Rule 13(2)(1)(a) to (d) but such an application would come under the residuary clause (e) relatable to “any other application by any person”. The dispute arises relating to the interpretation of expression “where the amount of debt due” as contained in Rule 13 (2) (c) and Rule 13 (2)(d) of the schedule. Though the petitioner can be considered as an “aggrieved party other than the borrower” as specified in entry (c) and (d), the expression “the amount of debt due being less than or Rs.10 Lakhs” as contemplated in entry (c) or “being Rs.10 lakhs and above” as specified in entry (d) does not arise at all so far as he is concerned. In our considered opinion his application has to be construed as coming within residuary entry (e). 10. It is well settled proposition of law that payment of Court Fees being a fiscal measure, the provision would be strictly construed and if there is any scope for any doubt, it should be interpreted in favour of the subject rather than in favour of the state. (See State Of Maharastra V. Mishri Lal ( AIR 1964 S.C., 457; Gujarat State Financial CORPN. V. Natson MFG. Co. (AIR 1978 S.C., 1765). 11. In view of the above conclusion, the alternative submission made need not be considered and since the petitioner had voluntarily paid Rs. (See State Of Maharastra V. Mishri Lal ( AIR 1964 S.C., 457; Gujarat State Financial CORPN. V. Natson MFG. Co. (AIR 1978 S.C., 1765). 11. In view of the above conclusion, the alternative submission made need not be considered and since the petitioner had voluntarily paid Rs. 2750/- as Court Fee, he can seek for refund of amount paid in excess of Rs. 2750/- though according to us, only Rs.200/- was payable. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, demanding payment of Rs.25,500/- in addition to the amount already paid , is unsustainable and the same is hereby quashed. It is stated that after disposal of the appeal by the D.R.A.T., the Debts Recovery Tribunal had already encased the Demand Draft for Rs. 25,500/-. Therefore necessary certificate shall be issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for refund of Rs.25,500/- to the present petitioner. It should be done within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order. The debts Recovery Tribunal shall now proceed to deal with the application under Section 17 on merit in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 12. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.