ASHAKINA BEGUM Vs. T.M.VARATHARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition is filed for writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with the petitioner's lawful possession and enjoyment of the property situated at Sruthilaya Apartments, Flat No.F-1, First Floor, Old Door No.32 and 32-A (New No.37), Bharatheeswarar Colony, 4th Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.

(2.) THE petitioner is a lessee under the first respondent/landlord. It is stated that the first respondent executed a lease deed dated 01.04.2008 in favour of the petitioner after receiving a sum of Rs.6,00,000/= as consideration for leasing out of the above flat for a period of 11 months. It is stated that the lease was subsequently renewed on 12.11.2011 for a further period of 11 months and the same was in force as on the date of the filing of the writ petition i.e., February 2012. The petitioner states that the Officials of the third respondent-Indian Bank called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises on account of Debt Recovery Proceedings against the first respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,80,030.00 with interest. Accordingly, the third respondent-Indian Bank issued possesion notice on 05.02.2012 under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act, 2002 and they disturbed the physical possession of the property. According to the petitioner, the action taken by the Bank is illegal. In support of the claim, the lessee/petitioner submits that the third respondent-Indian Bank has no right to take action against the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon this Court decision in the case of Indian Bank, Adyar Branch rep. By its Authorised Officer/Assistant General Manager Vs. Nippon Enterprises South, Rep. By its Partner, Mr.Chetan Acharya and others reported in 2011 (2) CTC 474 stating that in respect of lease hold property, the Bank cannot straight away dispossess the petitioner for taking recourse of the recovery proceedings against the landlord. In the light of the settled position of the law, learned counsel submits that the attempt of the Bank to dispossess the petitioner is not valid in law.

(3.) THE third respondent-Indian Bank, on its part has filed counter affidavit. It is pointed out that under the lease deed dated 01.04.2008, the consideration is stated to be Rs.6,00,000.00. The claim that the lease had been renewed for further 11 mnths is a total false claim. It is further stated that considering the mortgage created in favour of the Bank and the recovery proceedings, whatever be the petitioner's claim regarding lease deed rights, it is subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the Bank, consequently, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained.