SUMATHI SADASHIVAYYA Vs. LORD KRISHNA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, assailing the correctness of the impugned notice dated 16th june, 2006 bearing No. B. Dis. MAG (2)CR 46/2006-07c4 vide Annexure-D issued by third respondent, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner herein claims that, she is the tenant/lessee in respect of the schedule property under the lease agreement dated 20th October, 2004 entered into with second respondent for a period of three years. Since then, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said premises as tenant/lessee. It is the case of petitioner that, she learnt that, the second respondent had availed loan from the first respondent-Bank and other financial institutions. Due to default in payment of loan sanctioned by first respondent, the first respondent has issued notice under Sections 13 (2)and 13 (3) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short "sarfaesi act") read with Rule 9 of the SARFAESI rules. 2002 and took possession of the schedule property under possession notice. Even thereafter, the second respondent has not cleared the loan availed by him from the first respondent and therefore, the first respondent has initiated recovery proceedings against second respondent invoking the relevant provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the first respondent obtained permission from the third respondent to take possession of the schedule property. Assailing the correctness of the impugned possession notice, vide Annexure-D, referred above, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned counsel appearing for first respondent-Bank and learned Additional government Advocate appearing for third respondent.