KASHAVVAS KULLUR Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by contending that he was inducted as a tenant on 23.05.2006 by G. Yaksha Kumar in premises bearing Old No. 26, New No. 1, 2nd Floor, 1st Main, Ashwathnagar, RMV IInd Stage, Bangalore - 94, consisting of One Hall, One Kitchen, Two Bed Rooms, Lavatory, Bathroom and Toilet, has instituted this writ petition to quash a notice dated 07.07.2011, as at Annexure -B, issued by the respondent and to declare that he being a tenant cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law and that the respondent cannot take actual possession of the petition schedule premises under the provisions of Sarfaesi Act, 2002. Even according to the petition averments, respondent has taken symbolic possession of the said premises on 29.04.2008/11.05.2008, in exercise of the power under Section 13(4) of Sarfaesi Act, 2002, for realization of the amount due by Mr. G. Yaksha Kumar. Respondent having issued a notice, as at Annexure -B, to Mr. G. Yaksha Kumar, whom the petitioner claims to be his lessor, this writ petition was filed on 08.08.2011.

(2.) BY an order dated 25.08.2011, the respondent was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner physically from the premises in question, by making it clear that there is no impediment for the respondent to proceed with the symbolic/constructive possession and take further action with regard to the property, if there is no other legal impediment in law. As a result, the petitioner continues to remain in physical possession of the aforesaid premises. In W.P. No. 12985/2013 decided on 11.07.2013, involving similar issue, finding that the petitioner can avail remedy under Section 17 of Sarfaesi Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and that in the first instance, an interim order had been granted, by making it clear that benefit of the said order should ensure to the petitioner till the DRT is approached for relief, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Until then, the Authorized Officer of the IDBI Bank Limited was restrained from interfering with the physical possession of the writ petitioner. The facts in this case being identical, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.07.2013 passed in W.P. No. 12985/2013. Petitioner is granted four weeks time to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and seek relief. Till the DRT is approached for relief within the said period, it is made clear that the respondent shall not interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid premises by the petitioner. No costs.