SHOOJA N Vs. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is against coercive steps initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). A housing loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent Bank during the year 1999 was defaulted payment consecutively. As a consequence, proceedings under Section 13(4) was initiated against the immovable property, which is the residential house of the petitioner. The writ petition was filed at the stage when the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had issued notice of eviction. However, it was reported that before the matter was considered by this Court, the petitioner was physically dispossessed from the building in question. Under such circumstance an application was filed as IA.No.2091/2011 seeking direction against the respondents to hand over possession of the property which was taken over by the Advocate Commissioner.

(2.) IN a statement filed on behalf of the respondent it is mentioned that the loan in question was availed in the year 1999 with a repayment period of 168 months (14 years). But the petitioner had remitted only the EMIs. with respect to 11 months. It is stated that 128 EMIs. are in default, total amounting to around Rs.3.97 lakhs. It is also pointed out that the period of repayment will expire in the year 2013. According to the respondents, there is gross negligence on the side of the petitioner in effecting payment of any considerable amount, in spite of lapse of so many years. It is pointed out that even after initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the respondent Bank had waited for considerable years, in order to persuade the petitioner to settle the account. Hence the respondent contended that interference by this Court is not at all justified.

(3.) WHILE considering the limited relief sought for, I am of the view that even though interference on merits is not desirable, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to remit the entire balance amount within a reasonable time in instalments and to permit re-occupation on payment of considerable amount.