SHAILESH KANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenged the Order dated 23rd July 2009 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad in Recovery Proceedings No.51 of 2008 arising out of Original Application No.244 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, an advocate was appointed as the Receiver to take over the physical possession of the property in question and to hand over the same to the successful auction purchaser. It was ordered that in case, the property in question is found locked, the Receiver shall be authorized to break-open the locks applied over the property and prepare inventory; if any of the movables found inside the premises. The Receiver was empowered and authorized to take police assistance, if so required.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is a tenant of the residential property which was auctioned sold in a proceeding u/s. 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ["DRT Act " for short] in Original Application No. 244 of 2005 preferred at the instance of the Bank of Baroda. The grievance is that the petitioner has been dispossessed from his sole residential house from 25th July 2009 with the help of police personnel and the belongings of the petitioner were also removed from the house and locks and seals are applied. The said dispossession is made pursuant to illegal and erroneous order passed by the 2nd respondent-Recovery Officer in Recovery Proceeding No. 51 of 2008 in which petitioner is neither a party, nor was he given any opportunity of hearing.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by the owner of the house much prior to the institution of proceedings u/s.19 of the DRT Act. He had also filed a suit, being Rent Suit No. 36 of 2007 before the Small Causes Court at Vadodara. In the said suit, the petitioner also preferred Application Exh.5 seeking interim injunction. Initially, possession of the petitioner was protected vide Order dated 19th February 2007. The Court Commissioner was appointed, and possession of the petitioner was found in the premises in question. The Court passed order of status quo on 19th February 2007 which was made absolute on 28th July 2007 whereby the 3rd respondent was restrained to interfere with the matter till the final disposal of the suit.