UTHAMAN K. N. Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank to take physical possession of a shop room in which the petitioner is conducting a barber shop. The shop room in question is situated on property belonging to the 3rd respondent, who is indebted to the respondent Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be evicted by resort to proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and if at all he has to be evicted, proceedings will have to be initiated under the Rent Control Law.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent had purchased the building at a time when the father of the petitioner was a tenant in the building. It is submitted that this fact is even mentioned in the document of title of the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the Bank was thus aware of the fact that there were tenants and having undertaken the risk of accepting the mortgage of a building / property with tenants, the Bank cannot be heard to contend that they can evict persons in occupation without having to resort to proceedings under the Rent Control Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal [1979 (4) SCC 214] in support of the contention that the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act will not apply to a tenant who is protected in terms of the provisions contained in the State Rent Control Act. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishal N.Kalsaria v. Bank of India and Others [2016 (3) SCC 762] in support of the contention that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act will not override the provisions of the Rent Control Law.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the petitioner is clearly not entitled to any protection from eviction, on admitted facts. It is submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition stands covered against the petitioner by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Others [2014 (6) SCC 1] ; Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Another [2019 (9) SCC 94] and Hemraj Ratnakar Salian v. HDFC Bank Ltd. and Others [2021 KHC 6374]. It is submitted that this Court referred to the judgments in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra), Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra), Hemraj Ratnakar Salian (supra) in the judgment in Canara Bank v. Sachin Shyam [2023 (1) KHC 503] where this Court had interfered with the proceedings of a learned Magistrate under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, where the learned Magistrate had taken the view that granting an order for taking possession under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act would affect the rights of a tenant. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank also placed reliance on th recent judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 177) to contend that the respondent Bank is purely a private entity and does not answer the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, no writ petition is maintainable in the matter.