High Court Kerala High Court

Chandu S.Babu vs The District Collector on 15 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Chandu S.Babu vs The District Collector on 15 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36961 of 2004(A)


1. CHANDU S.BABU, BABU STUDIO,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SATHY BABU, S/O.SAHADEVAN,

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE HONKONG SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

3. DR.K.P.HARIDAS, GURUMANDIRAM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :15/06/2009

 O R D E R
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                  W.P.(C) No. 36961 OF 2004
             .........................................................................
                      Dated this the 15th June, 2009


                                 J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who is having only a lease hold right over

the property in question, is before this Court challenging the

coercive proceedings stated as being pursued by the respondent

Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. It

is brought to the notice of this Court that even though the matter

was admitted and an interim order of stay was granted, it

happened to be vacated subsequently after hearing both the

sides.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submits that the tenant cannot have a better right

than that of a landlord and that the issue is squarely covered by

the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in

Shameem vs City Police Commissioner (2005(4) KLT S.N.70

Case No.96 ) and also as per the decision rendered by another

W.P.(C) No. 36961 OF 2004

2

Division Bench in Business India Builders and Developers

Ltd. v. The Union Bank of India & Others [2007(1) KLJ

518].

This court does not find any merit to interfere. The writ

petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk