FEDERAL BANK LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner bank lent money to the respondents 3 to 6. On their default, the bank began recovery proceedings. When it invoked Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and wanted to take possession of the property, the 2nd respondent objected before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. He raised a plea that he is the tenant and he ought to have been put on notice. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court issued the Ext.P7 proceedings, asking the bank to put the tenant on notice. Assailing the Ext.P7, the bank filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel has strenuously contended that because of the amended Section 17(4)(A) of the SARFAESI Act, the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any objection by a third party, including a tenant. He, therefore, asserts that the Ext.P7 order cannot be sustained.

(3.) The 2nd respondent's counsel, on the other hand, submits that this Court and the Supreme Court have consistently held that the non obstante clause of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to demolish the statutory protections available to people. According to him, a tenant can be evicted only through due process and the Transfer of Property Act no exception for the banks. To support his contentions, he relied onVishal N. Kalsaria v. Bank of India and others, (2016) AIR SC 530 , Harshad Govardhan Sondagar and Others v. Internl. Assets Reconstm. Co. Ltd. and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 1 and Kelukuty P.M. And Others v. Young Men s Christian Association and Another,2016 1 KHC 853