Mohan Babu vs Bank Of Maharastra on 14 February, 2017

[Cites 5, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mohan Babu vs Bank Of Maharastra on 14 February, 2017

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                           1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

        WRIT PETITION NO.6475/2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MOHAN BABU
S/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KACHANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE
HENNAGARA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 105.                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI R. CHANNAKESHAVA, ADV.)

AND:

1.     BANK OF MAHARASTRA
       INDIRA NAGAR BRANCH
       NO.6, 1ST MAIN, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE
       INDIRA NAGAR
       BANGALORE - 560 071.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       AUTHORIZED OFFICER.

2.     SRI N.NARAYAN REDDY
       S/O LATE NANJUNDA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
       #94, ANR KALYAN MANTAPPA
       ANEKAL ROAD, CHANDAPURA
       BANGALORE - 560 081.

3.     SRI C.N. SHANTAKUMAR
       S/O. N.NARAYAN REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
                            2



     #575, 1ST 'A' MAIN,
     6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
     BANGALORE - 560 103                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.V.B.RAMSHANKAR, ADV. FOR R1
    SRI M.MUKUNDA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NO.1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION
VIDE ANNEXURE - E OF THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULED
PROPERTY.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                         ORDER

The petitioner is before this court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents not to take physical possession of the petition schedule premises.

2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of the petition schedule premises under a rent agreement dated 15.05.2014. Since, the respondent No.1 has initiated action against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and seek to take physical possession of the premises, the petitioner has approached this court.

3. At the first instance, this court, while directing notice has protected the possession of the petitioner and the said interim order being extended is in operation. While this is the position, it is to be taken note that by introduction of Sub-Section 4(A) to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the remedy of appeal is provided even to a person, who claims to be a lessee/tenant in respect of premises. In that view the petitioner will have to avail the remedy of appeal.

4. The petitioner shall therefore avail the remedy of appeal within a period of three weeks from this day and if the appeal is filed within three weeks, the benefit of interim order would continue till the appeal is taken up by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is further made clear that if the petitioner does not choose to avail the remedy of appeal and intends to vacate from the premises, he shall voluntarily vacate from the premises within two months from this day. Needless to mention that, if the petitioner does not avail either of the options indicated above and if no further orders are passed by 4 the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the first respondent would be entitled to avail the benefit of the order, if any passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI act after the expiry of two months as indicated above and take possession as per law.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE ST/PN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court