IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.14925 OF 2013 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH NO.16, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, MATADAHALLI, R T NAGAR BANGALORE - 560032 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV R., ADV.) AND 1. THE GRAIN MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK A CO-OPERATIVE BANK REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.2, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER THE SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, THE GRAIN MERCHANTS CO- OPERATIVE BANK , NO.2, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018 3. SRI M S PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE M S SRINIVASULU NO.66/1, 7TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BANGALORE - 560080 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER UPPARPET POLICE STATION UPPARPET, BANGALORE - 560 009 6. THE REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE - 560 002 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. RAGHU BABU, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2 SRI. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R4 AND R5 R3 AND R6 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER BEING A BONAFIDE TENANT CANNOT BE THROWN OUT BY FORCE BY INVOKING SEC. 13 AND 14 OF SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT 2002, PARTICULARLY WHEN A STATUTORY APPEAL IS PENDING CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN S.A. NO.124/2011; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. Vivek B. N., learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition as the issues involved in the present writ petition have been raised in W.P.Nos.51949-950/2013.
2. The aforesaid submission is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Be that as it may, writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE RD