Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1383 (KAR)

Syed Imdadulla v. Authorised Officer

2022-10-19

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner claiming to be the bonafide tenant in the property that is now brought to sale by the 1st respondent/Canara Bank on account of the 2nd respondent/owner defaulting in repayment to the Bank, seeks quashment of the possession notice dtd. 10/2/2022 issued by the Bank. 2. Heard Sri.V.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/Canara Bank. 3. Facts in brief are as follows: The petitioner enters into a rent agreement with the 2nd respondent, the owner of a particular premises which was mortgaged to the Canara Bank against a loan that was taken by him. The dues are now to the tune of Rs.2,09,12,779.00 which is to be made good by the owner. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in terms of an agreement dtd. 5/3/2021 and further claims that he is in possession of the property as a tenant even as on date. The possession notice now issued on 10/2/2022 will lead to the petitioner coming to the streets as he would be dispossessed. It is in that light the petitioner has approached this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this Court has passed orders whereby an interim order of stay is granted with a condition that the tenant would pay monthly rentals directly to the Bank on or before 5th of every calendar month. He would submit that if identical order is passed, petitioner would be protected. 5. In the light of the fact that the possession notice is issued after the petitioner getting into a rent agreement with the owner of the property, I deem it appropriate to accord such protection to the petitioner to stay in the premises and enable him to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Sec. 17(4 A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/Sri.T.P.Muthanna would refute the submissions that no indulgence should be shown to a tenant as the owner is wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the tenant in the teeth of the due being close to Rs.2,09,00,000.00 which is to be paid by the 2nd respondent/owner of the premises and would also submit that petitioner is not a bonafide tenant. 7. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submission, as also in the light of the fact of the assertion of the petitioner that he is a tenant in a part of the premises which is brought to sale, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to continue to stay in the premises for the next 10 weeks and vacate the premises after 10 weeks within which time, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal in terms of Sec. 17(4 A) of the SARFAESI Act. 8. In the event, the petitioner would not approach the Tribunal within a period of 10 weeks from today, the 1st respondent-Bank is at liberty to take possession of the premises in which the petitioner is now residing, after following due process of law. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.