SEATING WORLD EXTENSION Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally Criminal Courts at Hyderabad, passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2019 in S.R.No.2115 of 2018, dated 22.11.2019, whereby the application filed by the respondent-Bank under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Securitization Act') to take physical possession of the schedule property and handover the same to the Bank by appointing an AdvocateCommissioner, was allowed, and an Advocate by name Smt.Namala Sujatha was appointed as an AdvocateCommissioner to take physical possession of the petition schedule property, and to handover the same to the Bank.

(2.) The petitioner herein, who claims to be the tenant of the petition schedule property and in physical possession of the property, has filed the present writ petition contending that he was in physical possession and enjoyment of the property on the basis of an unregistered lease, dated 02.04.2011, and the subsequent renewal lease deed, dated 01.01.2017, which was renewed for a period of 15 years, for a monthly rent of Rs.5,50,000/-. He has spent considerable amount in establishing the furniture business. In case, the impugned order is not set aside, he will be put to great and irreparable loss and the same will not only affect his business substantially, will destroy the goodwill that he has gained in the market over the years and financially ruin him.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGAR v. INTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. AND ORS., 2014 6 SCC 1. The Tribunal without giving any opportunity, or hearing to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order, and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It is the further contention that after taking the premises on lease under an unregistered lease, dated 02.04.2011, the lease was renewed by lease deed, dated 01.01.2017, for a further period of 15 years. The petitioner has spent considerable amount in establishing the shop and is paying the monthly rent of Rs.5,50,000/- to the landlord. Subsequently, when the landlord committed default in repaying the loan amount to the Bank, the petitioner is paying the monthly rent of Rs.5,50,000/- to the Bank directly. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, is not only illegal, but the same also amounts to dispossessing the petitioner-tenant without following the due process of law. The further contention of the petitioner is that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was not right in passing the impugned order without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is admittedly a lessee in the premises, which is also the subject matter of the Second Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. Moreover, without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order is passed appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to take physical possession of the schedule property. If the impugned order were not set aside, the Advocate-Commissioner will dispossess the petitioner, which will not only result in irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner, but would also cause damage to the goods, which are lying in the subject premises.