PUSHPANGADAN Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this Writ Petition along with another Writ Petition came up for hearing before another Bench of this Court, the following question so flaw were framed for consideration:

(2.) According to the petitioners, they are tenants in a line building consisting of six rooms in Ward No. 13 of Cherthala Municipality, The building belonged to the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4. The second respondent availed a loan from the first respondent Bank in the year 2004. It is stated that respondents 2 to 4 have created security interest over the property as collateral security for the loan availed from the Bank. The loan was classified as non-perfoming assets (NPA) and the first respondent Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act"). The Bank filed a petition under S. 14 of the Securitisation Act before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha, who passed an order to take possession of the property. A Commissioner was appointed for that purpose. The Commissioner issued Ext. Pl notice to the tenants in the building stating that he would visit the property on 9.5.2008 to take possession. The tenants were directed to give vacant possession.

(3.) According to the petitioners, they are tenants in the building and they are entitled to protection from eviction under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act") and also under the Transfer of Property Act. It is stated that the father of the first petitioner had taken a building in the property on lease, about seventy years back, from the original landlord. Later, the property was purchased by the predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 4. The landlord filed a petition under S. 11(4)(iv) of the Rent Control Act, on the ground of reconstruction of the building. That petition was allowed and the present building with six rooms was reconstructed in the year 1986. The first petitioner was inducted in 1986 on a monthly rental of Rs. 150/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 400/-. The first petitioner is conducting a bakery and tea stall in the building. The second petitioner is a tenant in respect of another room since 1991 and he is conducting a photo studio on a rental of Rs. 300/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/-. The third petitioner took on lease another room in the line building in 1996 and he is conducting a watch repair shop on a rental of Rs. 300/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/-. The fourth petitioner is a tenant in respect of another room since 1988 on a rental of Rs. 300/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/-. He is conducting a store under the name and style "Anitha Lady Store" in that room. The fifth petitioner took the room on rent in 1986 and he is conducting a medical store under the name and style "Rasheed Medicals" on a rental of Rs. 350/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/-. The sixth petitioner took the southernmost room from respondents 2 to 4 in the year 2000 and he is conducting a tailoring shop therein. Exts. P2 to P14 documents were produced by the petitioners to prove that they are tenants in the building. They contended that no notice was issued to them in any proceeding except the notice issued by the Commissioner.