IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8931 of 2010(N)
1. SRI.JOBRAN G.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND
3. M/S. UNIVERSAL FOODS,
4. TAHASILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.RAJA
For Respondent :SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :09/04/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
---------------------------
W.P(C). No. 8931 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the tenant of the premises in question, over
which security interest was created by the third respondent, who
had availed a loan from the first respondent. The borrower did not
choose to satisfy the liability towards the first respondent Bank;
under which circumstance, the first respondent proceeded with
steps invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, which made
the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition
contending that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the
premises at any time, without any demur and handover the
possession to the Bank or any other person as directed by the
Bank and further that he will not make any claim over the property in
any manner. Based on the said submission and also the willingness
expressed by the petitioner to file an affidavit to that effect, as
projected in Ground ‘G’ of the writ petition, the coercive proceedings
were intercepted for a period of one month as per the interim order
dated 17.3.2010. The petitioner has filed an affidavit as well.
2. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondents
1 and 2 submits that, in the course of the steps for realisation of the
W.P.(C).No.8931/2010
2
amount due, the Bank has filed O.A. No.311/2006 before the DRT,
Ernakulam against the owner/borrower and the latter has filed a
counter affidavit in the above OA filed by the Bank, seeking for a stay
of all further proceedings and that the Tribunal has passed an interim
order of stay, which however was vacated subsequently, based on
the contentions raised on behalf of the Bank. The learned Senior
Counsel also submits that the petitioner herein being a tenant, does
not have a better right and title over the rights and liberties of the
landlord and as such, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds
that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy, if any, before the
DRT, Ernakulam for getting impleaded in the above OA. This Court
does not express anything on merits and no interference is warranted
in this Writ Petition. However, in order to enable the petitioner to
pursue the exercise as above, further coercive steps shall be kept in
abeyance for a period of one month.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
(JUDGE )
vps
W.P.(C).No.8931/2010
3
W.P.(C).No.8931/2010
4