BANSIDHAR CHAMAN LAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDISPUTEDLY , respondent No. 3 availed loan / credit facilities from the Allahabad Bank in the year 2010; respondent No.3 of which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are partners failed to discharge the liability, therefore, Bank was pleased to issue notices to the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 under Section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on 02.07.2012; thereafter, possession was taken on 02.08.2014 of entire property bearing Municipal No. 30/A (New No. 65) Arhat Bazar, Dehradun measuring 198.09 sq. meter; petitioner, claiming himself as tenant of the shop on the ground Floor of the property bearing Municipal No. 30/A (new number 65) Arhat Bazar, Dehradun, approached this Court by way of present petition saying petitioner was inducted as tenant in the shop, in question, long before @ Rs. 53/ - p.m.; eviction proceedings were also initiated against the tenant / petitioner by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 in the year 1993 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 120 of 1993; P.A. Case No. 120 of 1993 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.12.1997 and appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority; Bank in the garb of the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act cannot dis -possess the established tenant, however, Bank can take only symbolic possession of the tenanted portion, therefore, sealing of the tenanted shop is illegal and Bank should be directed to reopen the seal of the shop in possession of the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Sah, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 Bank and Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the borrower/ respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and have carefully perused the record.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that loan facility was availed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the year 2010 while petitioner tenant was inducted as tenant about three decades before taking loan from the Bank. Not only this eviction proceeding was initiated by the landlord/borrower against the petitioner tenant in the year 1993 which was ultimately decided in favour of the tenant petitioner way back in the year 1997, therefore, submission of Mr. K.K. Sah, Advocate, appearing for the Bank, that eviction proceeding was collusive cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the year 1993 when eviction suit was filed neither petitioner nor respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could have thought that loan would be taken after almost two decades and therein default would be made by the borrower and defence would be set up to save the shop.