ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. BANSIDHAR CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the 2nd respondent in the writ petition. Appellant Bank had granted a loan to respondent No.3 of which respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the partners. In view of default in payment of loan, proceedings were taken under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). The possession of the building, bearing Municipal No.30/A (new No. 65), Arhat Bazar, Dehradun measuring 198.09 sq. metre, was taken. It is thereupon the writ petitioner filed the writ petition, wherein he claimed that he was tenant of the shop on the ground floor of the property bearing Municipal No.30/A (new No. 65), Arhat Bazar, Dehradun. It was his case that he has been inducted as tenant long ago and he referred to litigation between the landlord. According to him, therefore, taking of possession from him, who was a tenant protected under law, was unsustainable. The learned Single Judge found favour with the contention of the writ petitioner and the writ petition was disposed of by directing to open the seal of the tenanted property forthwith and to allow the petitioner tenant to use tenanted property in accordance with law. Moreover, the Bank or the transferee from the Bank was at liberty to recover the rent from the tenant petitioner as well as to initiate appropriate eviction proceedings in accordance with law.

(2.) IT is feeling aggrieved by the same, the appeal has been filed.

(3.) WE have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Bank Shri Arvind Vashisth and Shri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the proposition that statutory tenant cannot be ousted from possession on the basis of recovery steps taken under the SARFAESI Act by the Bank. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant brings to our notice the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, (N.P. Pushpangadan and others Versus Federal Bank and others, 2011 4 KerLT 134). He also, in fact, draws our attention to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Versus International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and others, 2014 6 SCC 1). In the same, he drew our attention to the following paragraph : -