T DAYANANDAN Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.201 of 2009 of Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy is aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit on a finding as to its maintainability, confirmed by Sub Court, Koyilandy in A.S.No.25 of 2010.

(2.) THE appellant claimed that he is a tenant of the plaint schedule building, his father having obtained tenancy from Appukutty Marar in the year, 1965 as per kaichit reciting payment of rent at the rate of Rs.25/- per month. Later, appellant claimed to have taken up the business in the said building and continued as its tenant. While so, the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant affixed notice (obviously under Sec.13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - for short, "SARFAESI Act" with intent to dispossess the appellant from the building. Appellant prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction against dispossession otherwise than as provided under the law. According to the appellant, he being a tenant of the building even prior to creation of security in favour of the 1st respondent (by the 3rd respondent) he is entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965 and could be evicted only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

(3.) THOUGH the consistent view this Court had taken earlier was that Sec.35 of the SARFAESI Act is sufficient to override all other laws (including Act 2 of 1965) the Full Bench has overruled the said decisions and held that there is no inconsistency so far as provisions of Act 2 of 1965 and the SARFAESI Act are concerned and that so far as a tenant who was inducted into possession of the property even prior to creation of security is concerned, he can be evicted only in accordance with the provisions of Act 2 of 1965. The first appellate court has taken note of the decision of the Full Bench (supra) and moulded its finding accordingly.