SURENDRA SINGH Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of the other writ being W. P. No. 1592 of 2002 because in both these writs common question of law is involved.

(2.) BY filing this writ, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order, dated 5. 10. 2002 (Annexurep-10) alleged to be passed by Recovery Inspector (respondent No. 2) Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. It reads as under: "xxxx xxxx xxxx"

(3.) THE dispute in this case relates to a shop situated at 503, M. G. Road, Indore (old No. 279 ). It is alleged to be owned by respondent No. 3. It is the case of petitioner that they are the lawfully inducted tenant of respondent No. 3 pursuant to rent note dated 21. 8. 1990 (Annexure P-1) executed by them in favour of respondent No. 3 and since then petitioner has been in actual physical possession of the said shop being a lessee of respondent No. 3 and is carrying on their business. The petitioner says that all of a sudden, they received the impugned order (referred supra) asking them to vacate the shop in three days failing which it was threatened that the possession of the shop will he taken from them by force giving rise to filing of this writ and challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order. It is also the case of petitioner that on an inquiry made by them, as to in what circumstance, the impugned order came to be served on them for taking such extreme action against the petitioner, it was revealed that respondent No. 4 a Nationalised Bank had filed a claim against the respondent No. 3 for realisation of loan, amount before the D. R. T. Jabalpur under the provisions of the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as R. D. B. Act) and obtained money decree against respondent No. 3. It was also revealed that it is in realisation of this money claim, the shop in question mortgaged by respondent No. 3 with the respondent No. 4 was sold in auction and purchased by respondent No. 5 (as auction purchaser ). It was further revealed that it is to accommodate the auction purchaser (respondent No. 5) the impugned letter/order was sent to petitioner by the Recovery Inspector-the respondent No. 2 asking them to deliver vacant possession to auction purchaser. This Court issued the notices of petition to respondents and in the meantime by order dated 10. 10. 2002 stayed the operation of impugned order. It is, however, the case of petitioner that respondent No. 5 with the aid of impugned order has obtained possession of the shop in question by force and has thereby dispossessed the petitioner without any authority of law. A prayer is also thus made for restoring the possession back to petitioner to uphold the majesty of law. The respondents are served and represented. They have also filed their respective returns justifying the impugned action, both on facts as also in law.