JUDGMENT : Ext.P3 proceedings of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai is under challenge in this original petition. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of the case are the following: The petitioner is the grandson of one N.Sundareswaran, who was the Managing Partner of a firm called M/s.Sundareshwaran, which enjoyed credit facilities from Kollam branch of Indian Bank (the Bank). When the firm committed default in remitting the dues to the Bank, proceedings have been initiated by the Bank for realisation of the amounts due. While so, the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) came into force. When the Act came into force, the Bank initiated proceedings simultaneously against the mortgaged properties under the Act as well and in furtherance to the said proceedings, an item of property was sold to the second respondent on 24/07/2008. The petitioner who claims independent right over the said property challenged the sale in an application under Section 17 of the Act before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal in terms of Ext.P1 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act mandates the borrowers who prefer appeals challenging orders passed under Section 17 of the Act to deposit 50% of the amount of debt due from them, as claimed by the secured creditors or as determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less, for the Appellate Tribunal to entertain their appeals under Section 18 of the Act. Further, Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (the Rules) prescribes different fee schedules for preferring appeals under Section 18 of the Act for borrowers as also third parties who have nothing to do with the debt. In terms of the said provision, the fee payable for the appeal under Section 18 of the Act for third parties, who have nothing to do with the debt, is Rs.1,250/-plus Rs.125/-for every Rs.1,00,000/-or part thereof in excess of Rs.10,00,000/-, subject to a maximum of Rs.50,000/-. In terms of the said provision, the fee payable for the appeal under Section 18 of the Act for third parties, who have nothing to do with the debt, is Rs.1,250/-plus Rs.125/-for every Rs.1,00,000/-or part thereof in excess of Rs.10,00,000/-, subject to a maximum of Rs.50,000/-. Since the petitioner has nothing to do with the debt due to the Bank and since the debt due to the Bank, for the recovery of which proceedings under the Act have been initiated, is far in excess of Rs.10,00,000/-, the petitioner instituted the appeal without pre-deposit under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, paying a fee of Rs.50,000/-. The registry of the Appellate Tribunal, however, maintained the stand that the petitioner has to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, so as to enable the Tribunal to entertain the appeal preferred by him. The registry also maintained that the petitioner is liable to pay a fee for the appeal as applicable to borrowers, for, he cannot be regarded as a third party. The petitioner did not agree with the stand taken by the registry. The matter was consequently placed before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, in terms of the impugned proceedings, accepted the stand of the registry and directed the petitioner to pay the deficit fee and comply with the requirement of pre-deposit under the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings of the Appellate Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank as also the learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. It is beyond dispute that the petitioner is neither the borrower nor the guarantor to the transactions entered into by the borrower with the Bank. Of course, the petitioner is related to the borrower. A perusal of the impugned proceedings indicates that the petitioner is claiming an independent right over the property which was sold in furtherance to the proceedings under the Act. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is that since the petitioner has blood relationship with the borrower, he can be regarded only as a borrower for the purposes of Section 18 of the Act. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is that since the petitioner has blood relationship with the borrower, he can be regarded only as a borrower for the purposes of Section 18 of the Act. The question, therefore, is whether a person who is related to the borrower is liable to be treated as a borrower for the purposes of Section 18 of the Act. 5. Section 17 of the Act is the remedy available not only for borrowers and others, who in terms of the contracts entered into with the secured creditor, are liable for the amount of debt due to the secured creditor, but also for persons who are aggrieved by any of the measures taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Section 18 being the provision in the statute to challenge the orders passed under Section 17 of the Act, there cannot be any dispute that the provisions therein are available for both borrowers as also to persons other than borrowers and the said fact is manifest from the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 also. For a better understanding of Section 18, the said provision needs to be quoted: 18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed to an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal. Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower: Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent. of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less: Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent. of debt referred to in the second proviso. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder. of debt referred to in the second proviso. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder. Since both borrowers and persons other than borrowers are permitted to prefer appeals challenging the orders under Section 17 of the Act, the second proviso to the sub-section (1) of Section 18 can have application only to the appeals preferred by the borrowers, for, otherwise, the provision contained therein, which casts an obligation on the borrowers to make the pre-deposit, would be a condition which is impossible of performance, as far as others are concerned. The view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that it applies to third parties who are related to the borrowers is unsustainable as the provisions contained in the Act as also its scheme do not warrant such a view. 6. As regards the fee payable on the appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Act, it is seen that Rule 13 of the Rules governs the field. Rule 13 reads thus : “13. Fees for applications and appeals under sections 17 and 18 of the Act. -(1) Every application under sub section (1) of section 17 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 18 shall be accompanied by a fee provided in the sub-rule (2) and such fee may be remitted through a crossed demand draft drawn on a bank or Indian Postal Order in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal or the Court as the case may be, payable at the place where the Tribunal or the Court is situated. (2) The amount of fee payable shall be as follows: No. Nature of Application Amount of Fee payable 1 Application to a Debt Recovery Tribunal under sub-section (1) of section 17 against any of the measures referred to in subsection (4) of section 13 (a) Where the applicant is a borrower and the amount of debt due is less than Rs.10 lakhs Rs. 500 for every Rs.1 lakh or part thereof (b) Where the applicant is a borrower and the amount of debt due is Rs. 10 lakhs and above Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 250 for every Rs. 500 for every Rs.1 lakh or part thereof (b) Where the applicant is a borrower and the amount of debt due is Rs. 10 lakhs and above Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 250 for every Rs. 1 lakh or part thereof in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs subject to a maximum of Rs. 1,00,000 (c) Where the applicant is an aggrieved party other than the borrower and where the amount of debt due is less than Rs.10 lakhs Rs. 125 for every Rupees One lakh or part thereof (d) Where the applicant is an aggrieved party other than the borrower and where the amount of debt due is Rs.10 lakhs and above Rs. 1,250 + Rs. 125 for every Rs. 1 lakh or part thereof in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000 (e) Any other application by any person Rs. 200 2 Appeal to the Appellate Authority against any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 Same fees as provided at clauses (a) to (e) of serial number 1 of this rule] As provided for in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, Rule 13 prescribes different fees for filing an appeal by the borrowers and by persons other than the borrowers. The provisions contained in the rule, at no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted to hold that since the petitioner is related to the borrower, he is liable to pay fee applicable to the borrowers. Fee payable on an appeal being a fiscal imposition, it is settled that even if two views are possible on the construction and interpretation of the levying provision, the benefit has necessarily to go to the person who could be treated as obliged to pay. It is all the more so in the case of levy of fee to a judicial proceedings, for, the same would otherwise jeopardise access to justice which is one of the basic requirements of the rule of law. In the result, Ext.P3 proceedings is quashed and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioner, if the same is otherwise in order.