KOLLA NEHRUMALA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2022 in C.F.No.837 of 2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the house bearing D.No.22-52 in L.P.No.1956/16, Gollapudi Panchayath, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

(2.) This Court has heard Ms.P.Haritha, learned counsel representing Sri S.R.Sanku, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ch. Marakondaiah, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the 5th respondent.

(3.) The 1st petitioner before this Court, as pointed out by the learned counsel during the course of the submissions, is the daughter-in-law of the 2nd respondent and wife of the 3rd respondent. It is contended that she is residing in property bearing Door No.22-53/1, 4th Line, Saipuram Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, Gollapudi, Vijayawada. The said property was mortgaged to the 1st respondent bank for a loan. Since the loan was not cleared the bank took proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI Act') and filed an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in Crl.M.P.No.384 of 2022 under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property under the said Act. This order is assailed by the 1stpetitioner stating that since it is a shared household she cannot be evicted under this Act. Learned counsel points out that the 1stpetitioner is entitled to various types of orders and in particular she refers to Sec. 17 (1) and (2) of the D.V.C. Act, that since there is a shared household the petitioners cannot be evicted from the shared household by the third parties. It is also submitted that her husband and father-in-law (in view of the domestic issues), have colluded with the 1st respondent Bank which invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act to evict the petitioners. It is contended that the DVC Act is a special Act and that this Court should protect the petitioners and set aside the order passed in the Criminal M.P., by which the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for taking possession.