Disposed

Sri.K.T Jayaramegowda v. the Janatha Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2024WP/3595/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants of mortgaged dwelling houses challenged a bank's possession notice under SARFAESI proceedings. The issue was covered by an earlier writ petition; this Court likewise disposed the petition directing the petitioners to approach the DRT under Section 17(4A), with interim protection against dispossession for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners given liberty to approach DRT under S.17(4A); interim protection against dispossession for four weeks.

Sri.K.T Jayaramegowda Vs the Janatha Co. Operative… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:7083 WP No. 3595 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.T.JAYARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE T.THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. N.VARALAKSHMI W/O GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. RANI K. S., W/O PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE NO. 219 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. H.J.ANANDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7083 WP No. 3595 of 2024

¶19

NO. 156, 8^TH MAIN ROAD 17^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM WEST BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶20

SMT. R.LAKSHMI W/O S.N.SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO. 219 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA LAGGERE, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.V.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 12/01/2024 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A; ii) DIRECTION TO THE R1 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS FOR TAKING THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE DWELLING HOUSES FROM THESE PETITIONERS OR ALTERNATIVELY TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE R1 TO PAY THE LEASE AMOUNT TO THESE PETITIONERS OUT OF THE RESIDUE AMOUNT BEFORE TAKING THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION FROM THESE PETITIONERS.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following

¶27

prayers:

¶28

“(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 12/01/2024 issued by the 1^st respondent vide at ANNEXURE-A in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

(ii) To issue a writ or direction to the Respondent No. 1 to take appropriate legal proceedings for taking the

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7083 WP No. 3595 of 2024

¶31

actual possession of the dwelling houses from these petitioners or alternatively to issue directions to the Respondent No. 1 to pay the lease amount to these petitioners out of the residue amount before taking the physical possession from these petitioners in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

(iii) To pass any appropriate orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

Heard Sri.H.J.Ananda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶34

Both, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and 1^st respondent, would in unison submit, that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.810 of 2024 disposed on 11-01-2024.

¶35

This Court, in Writ Petition No.810 of 2024, has held as follows:

¶36

“3. The petitioner is a tenant in the property owned by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the borrower from the hands of respondent No.1-Bank. The loan having become sticky, respondent No.1-Bank initiates proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 (for short 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') qua respondent No.2.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:7083 WP No. 3595 of 2024

¶39

4. The petitioner's apprehending that he would be dispossessed from the property, have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking no action be taken qua the property by the Bank.

¶40

5. The petitioner being a tenant has remedy to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17(4A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner shall prefer appropriate application/appeal before the DRT under the aforesaid proviso. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to approach the DRT under the afore-quoted provision of law. In the event they would not approach the DRT within four weeks, till such time, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the property. In the event the petitioner would not approach the DRT and seek appropriate orders at the hands of the DRT, the interim protection granted in the subject order would automatically vanish.

¶41

6. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT, the petition stands disposed.”

¶42

In view of the issue standing covered by the judgment of this Court as afore-quoted on all its fours, the subject petition is also disposed on the same terms.

¶43

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

BKP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT:SS

Sri.K.T Jayaramegowda v. the Janatha Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.T Jayaramegowda v. the Janatha Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parvathamma, Vs Sri. Kanyakaparameshwari Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Pushpak Products India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Pushpak Products India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B H Kemparaju Vs the Passport Officer

Sri Venkataramappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H Sreeramappa Vs State of Karnataka