IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50857/2019(GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
C. N. SHANTHA KUMAR, SON OF MR. N. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 145.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R. CHANNAKESHAVA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . M/S CANARA BANK NO.33, 100 FEET RING ROAD, 18TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, J. P. NAGAR II PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2 . MR. K. N. SHANKAR SON OF LATE MR. K. NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3 . MRS. K. PADMAVATHI WIFE OF MR. K. N. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4 . MR. K. MADHU KIRAN SON OF MR. K. N. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 1381, 18TH MAIN, II PHASE, J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078.
5 . MR. ASHWINI KUMAR. J SON OF LATE MR. JANAKI RAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 445/A, 1ST A CROSS, 12TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
6 . THE HONBLE RECOVERY OFFICER HONBLE DERT-II, BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT BENGALURU IN IA 1417/2019 IN I.R. No.1981/2019 AT ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought to (i)quash the order dated 28.10.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru in I.A.No.1417/2019 in I.R.No.1981/2019; (ii)quash the order passed by the District Magistrate, Bengaluru dated 05.03.2018 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act; (iii)quash the order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer-I, Bengaluru by appointing Ms. Soubhagya.N.A. Advocate as Court Commissioner to take physical possession of the schedule property and (iv) for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 not to dispossess the petitioner from the schedule property.
2. When the matter came up before the Court on 18.11.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that, if three months’ time is granted, the petitioner will vacate and voluntarily hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property and also pay the rent at the rate of `1,00,000/- per month for a period of three months in advance and the respondent No.1-bank may proceed with the auction, scheduled to be held on 07.12.2019 and sought time to file undertaking affidavit to that effect. Therefore, the matter was adjourned today i.e., 19.11.2019.
3. Today, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, filed the affidavit of the petitioner – Sri C.N.Shantha Kumar, S/o N. Naryana Reddy, to the effect that, he is the tenant of the property in question and during the course of the hearing of the writ petition, he had stated that he will vacate the schedule property by the end of three months and therefore, this Court directed to file affidavit to that effect. At paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated as under:
“2. I hereby unconditionally undertake to voluntarily vacate the schedule property in question at the end of 3 months from today.
3. I further state that as a tenant, I have no objection for the sale proposed by the orders of the DRT at the instance of the 1st respondent.
4. I further undertake that within a period of 1 week from today, I shall deposit a sum of Rupees 3 lakhs as advance rentals to the 1st respondent for the period covering the aforesaid 3 months.”
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to continue in the schedule premises for a period of three months from today, subject to payment of `3,00,000/- in advance (`1,00,000/- per month), within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Court. The respondent No.1-Bank is permitted to proceed with the auction scheduled to be held on 07.12.2019, but should not disturb the petitioner’s possession for a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall vacate the schedule premises, voluntarily, before expiry of three months from today and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent No.1.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE kcm