IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.12989/2016 [GM-RES] BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJ S.M., LATE MURUGENDRAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.201, ROYAL HARMONY, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALURU-560 058. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI.MARKANDA SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N SURESHA, ADVOCATE] AND:
1. SYNDICATE BANK, JALAHALLI BRANCH, BENGALURU-560 049. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
2. SRI. PALGUNA KRISHNAN V., S/O. V. VENKATESHAN, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.472, 10TH A MAIN, 4TH ‘A’ CROSS, M.E.I. LAYOUT, BAGALAGUNTTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073. ... RESPONDENTS [RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED] * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARCTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-1 NOT TO TAKE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULED PROPERTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner being aggrieved by the possession notice issued by respondent No.1 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’ for short] has filed the present petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to restrain respondent No.1 not to take physical possession of the property of which the petitioner claims to be a lessee under respondent No.2 herein.
2. The petitioner merely on the ground that he is a lessee of respondent No.2 and claiming that he had made payment of security deposit and rental amount, is seeking for the above direction.
3. Though the respondents have been served, they have not appeared. In their absence, the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the petitioner’s counsel.
4. The present proceedings are in the nature of a bare injunction suit and there is no challenge of any proceedings or any order which has been made in the writ petition, such a relief of bare injunction is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In terms of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the jurisdiction of all Civil Courts is excluded and the same is vested with the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be.
5. In view of a specific efficacious alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner if so advised is at liberty to initiate such proceedings under the said Act to challenge the possession notice. Since this Court by an Order dated 23.03.2016 directed the 1st respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule property, the said order shall remain in force for a further period of six weeks from today.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to be made available as regards the time spent in prosecuting this matter. The said request is accepted. In the event of any proceedings being filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the present writ petition shall be considered.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*