A writ petition seeking direction to stop interference with possession was dismissed on the ground of suppression of facts regarding bank proceedings under SARFAESI Act.
Liberty to avail alternative remedies available to the petitioner.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.29389 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking direction to respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over house bearing No.1-2-146/2, situated at Saikrishna Colony, Budvel, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced written instructions of Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station, Hyderabad stating that Bank of Maharashtra (Bank) initiated proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short “the Act”), 2002. It is stated that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad vide order dated 16-05-2017 in Crl.MP.No.410 of 2017, appointed the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the subject house. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner has taken the physical possession on 01-07-2017 and handed over to the Bank. However, the petitioner, who is the tenant in the subject house, sent a message stating that the Bank has to take fresh orders from the Court to get him vacated, as the house owner has mortgaged total property and the Bank took symbolic possession of the subject property only an extent of 224 square yards, out of 248 square yards. In view of the same, it appears that the Bank has taken steps for recovery of the amount and initiated proceedings under the Act. Without
2
revealing the same, the present writ petition is filed alleging that the landlord is interfering with the possession of the petitioner unlawfully. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of fact. More so, when Bank initiated proceedings under the Act, the same cannot be interdicted in the writ petition.
In view of the same, no relief can be granted in the writ petition.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies available to him. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
04-10-2018
Nvl
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be maintained when the petitioner has suppressed the fact that the bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act.
Petitioner
Respondents 2 to 4
ARAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
