IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 7624 OF 2014 (GM-RES) Between:
Sri.B.C.Dattatri, S/o Late Chandrashekar Rao, Aged about 71 years, R/a No.3/22, Ground Floor, 31st Main, Abbaiah Reddy Layout, J.P.Nagar 6th Phase, Bangalore-560078 …Petitioner (By Sri. Ravishankar.S, Advocate) And:
1. Sri.H.R. Shashi Kumar S/o Rudrappa, Major in age, Prop. Vinayaka Medical and General Store, No.9, Ramanashree Nilaya, Chunchanaghatta, Kothnur Main Road, Bangalore-560062.
2. Smt.Kantha Shashi Kumar, W/o H.R.Shashi Kumar, Major in age, No.9, Ramanshree Nilaya, Chunchanaghatta, Kothnur Main Road, Bangalore-560062.
3. The Bank of India, V.V.Puram Branch, No.83, Diagonal Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore- 560004. Represented by its Chief Manager.
4. The United Bank of India, The Asset Recovery Management Branch. Brigade Road, Bangalore-560001.
Represented by its Chief Manager.
5. Sri. K.S.Srinivas, Father’s name not known, Major in age, No.211, New Bank Colony, Konanakunte, Bangalore-560062. … Respondents (By Smt.S.Harini, Advocate for R1and R2 Sri M.Mohamed Ibrahim, Advocate for R3 Sri.R.V.Naik, Advocate for R4 R5 is served but unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-K the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.Misc.No.5907/2013 by allowing this writ petition.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking to protect his possession in respect of the petition schedule property.
2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 – Bank had initiated action under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the property. Since the petitioner claims to be a lessee in respect of the premises in question, challenged the order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.
3. This Court through the interim order dated 13.2.2014 had stayed the dispossession of the petitioner.
4. In this case, the issues relating to tenancy and lease-hold rights are also to be decided in an appeal filed under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘the DRT’), the petitioner is required to be relegated to the remedy of appeal. However, since this Court had granted the interim order, such protection is required to be granted to the petitioner till the appeal is taken up for consideration by the DRT. This is however subject to the condition that the petitioner shall file such appeal before the DRT within three weeks from this date.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ssd/gjm