Tenants contended against a vacation notice issued by a bank after repossession under SARFAESI Act via court order. Petitioners filed an undertaking to vacate; court disposed of the writ petition. No separate appeal.
Writ petition disposed; petitioners cautioned that violation of their undertaking would attract contempt proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 32978 OF 2017
O R D E R :
Petitioners herein are the tenants of the premises bearing H.No.2-17-127/1/21, situated at Annapurna Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad, which was owned by one Sri G.Venkateswara Rao. While so, on 16.09.2017, respondent No.2 along with the officials of respondent No.1 Bank came to the premises and issued a Vacation Notice directing them to vacate the premises within one week. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
It appears that the premises in question was mortgaged to respondent No.1 by the borrower M/s.Ganesh Engineering Works. The premises has been repossessed by the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Respondent No.2 has issued the Vacation Notice, pursuant to the orders, dated 28.08.2017, passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District in Crl.M.P.No.591 of 2017, for taking physical possession of the said property.
After receipt of the notice, respondent No.1 Bank had consented to allow the petitioners to vacate the premises within two months.
The petitioners also filed an undertaking before this Court that they shall vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2017. The undertaking is made part of the record.
2
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of cautioning the petitioners that violation of the undertaking given by them would result in initiation of contempt proceedings and they would be liable to be prosecuted.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand disposed of.
________________________
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J
Dt:12.10.2017
kdl
Petitioners
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
