LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-197

A STEPHEN SAMUEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 28, 2003
A.STEPHEN SAMUEL Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.19700/2000 and 20725/2000 dated 23.7.2001.

(2.) The appellants are the tenants of the properties covered in the notice issued by the second respondent. According to the appellants, the properties were let out to them by one P.V.Paulson Ukkuru and the said P.V.Paulson Ukkuru is the sole proprietor of M/s.Josephaul Steels to which the third respondent, namely, Canara Bank, Chennai had extended certain credit facilities which were collaterally secured by the deposit of title deeds. Since P.V.Paulson Ukkuru did not repay the loan borrowed by him, the third respondent filed the suit for recovery of the outstanding amount and on the formation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the said suit was transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and it is stated that an order was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal directing the said Paulson Ukkuru to repay the same. Since he failed to repay the amount as ordered, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has directed the issuance of recovery certificate. It is stated that in the execution of the recovery certificate the properties which are under occupation of the appellants/tenants were sold in public auction and the fourth respondent herein was the successful bidder. The purchaser of the properties requested the Recovery Officer, the second respondent herein, for vacant possession of the properties and the second respondent passed an order directing the appellants who are in occupation of the properties to hand over the vacant possession of the properties and in the order it is stated that if they fail to hand over the vacant possession of the properties to the second respondent, suitable action would be taken for their eviction.

(3.) The appellants challenged the said order in the writ petitions filed by them before this Court and the learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitions, dismissed the same giving liberty to the appellants to move the appellate authority under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Recovery of Debts Act'). Learned Judge while directing the appellants to approach the appellate authority, also held that the Recovery Officer is authorised under the Recovery of Debts Act to evict any person from any property sold in public auction and the contention of the appellants that they are statutory tenants and they could not be evicted has no force. However, learned Single Judge safeguarded the interest of the appellants by observing that the appellate authority should decide the appeal to be preferred by the appellants herein on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in his order. It is, against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the two writ petitions, the present writ appeals have been preferred.