ARUNA KUMARI Vs. CORPORATION BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court claiming to be a tenant under the 2nd respondent praying for a direction to the 1st respondent not to dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law as envisaged under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and also for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,30,000.00 at the time of vacating the premises.

(2.) Heard Sri Raghavendra .C, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.B. Ravishankar, learned counsel for 1st respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a tenant under the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had taken financial assistance from the 1st respondent-Corporation Bank. As the 2nd respondent failed to repay the debt, the 1st respondent- Bank initiated recovery proceedings under Sec. 13(2) of the SARSAESI Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner claims that he is a tenant under the 2nd respondent under unregistered lease agreement dtd. 3/6/2010. This Court by order dtd. 5/6/2015 directed the 1st respondent-Bank not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner. In view of the interim order, petitioner continues to be in possession of the premises.