Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 496 (MAD)

C. Umapathy v. Bank of India, Cathedral Road Branch, Chennai

2015-01-29

M.VENUGOPAL, SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2015
Judgment Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent Bank not to evict the petitioner from the tenanted premises at No.44/1, Madhavaram High Road, North Perambur, Chennai-600 011 without due process of law and give sufficient time to evict in pursuant to the proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1090 of 2013. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was inducted into the premises, which has been declared as secured asset, by the landlord as a tenant much before the property in question was mortgaged with the Bank for obtaining loan and as such, the application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short “SARFAESI Act”), is not maintainable. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others (2014) 6 SCC 1, it is contended that no order to take over possession of the property in question can be passed before the tenancy is determined in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the petitioner seeks the aforestated direction, forbearing the Bank from evicting the petitioner. 3. We are not inclined to go into the factual disputes at this stage, as it is stated by the petitioner that the bank has preferred an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to secure the possession of the secured assets, which is pending disposal. The petitioner is competent to make an application in the pending proceedings to put forward his case. In that view of the matter, we reserve liberty to the petitioner to make an application in the pending proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the event an application is made by the petitioner, the authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with law, on its own merit before passing the final order. 4. Resultantly, we dispose of the writ petition with the aforestated liberty and direction. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.