Dr.Anandhasekar vs The District Collector on 11 September, 2018
3. Asserting his right that he being a lawful tenant and running the
aforementioned hospital, the third respondent cannot dispossess the
petitioner without giving any notice whatsoever. The impugned order issued by
the third respondent under the SARFAESI Act indicates that the District
Collector, Thanjavur District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur /
respondents 1 and 2 exercising their power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI
Act and passed an order to take physical possession of the property in
question from the petitioner, at the instance of the sixth respondent
Mr.T.Elangovan, for the dues payable by the fifth respondent G.Anusuya,
behind his back, which is not permissible in the light of the ratio laid down
by the Apex Court in the case of Vishal N.Kalsaria v. Bank of India and
others reported in 2016 (2) SCC 452, followed by an order passed by the
Division Bench in Writ Petition No.36504 of 2016, dated 20.10.2016 (Mohamed
Jamaludin vs. State Bank of Travancore and others). Since Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act, which has been amended on 12.06.2016 by inserting Section 4(A)
of 2016 with effect from 01.09.2016, makes it clear that any person claiming
to be a tenant or having leasehold right upon the secured asset has to
approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal to examine the facts of the case on
evidence that such person is a lawful tenant, we are unable to entertain the
writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed by giving liberty
to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. Since the
petitioner claims that he is running the hospital with patients, we give 5
working days time from today to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai.
Till then, status quo shall be maintained. This order is not passed on the
merits but only on the ground that the petitioner claims to be running the
hospital. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.