Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.T Jayaramegowda vs The Janatha Co Operative Bank Ltd on 20 February, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7083
WP No. 3595 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 3595 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.T.JAYARAMEGOWDA
S/O LATE T.THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2. SMT. N.VARALAKSHMI
W/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
3. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O JAVAREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
4. SMT. RANI K. S.,
W/O PARAMESH
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE NO. 219
KARNATAKA 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS
CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H.J.ANANDA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7083
WP No. 3595 of 2024
NO. 156, 8TH MAIN ROAD
17TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM WEST
BENGALURU - 560 055.
2. SMT. R.LAKSHMI
W/O S.N.SHIVARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO. 219
1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS
CHOWDESHWARI NAGARA
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
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.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following
prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned
notice dated 12/01/2024 issued by the 1st
respondent vide at ANNEXURE-A in the interest of
justice and equity.
(ii) To issue a writ or direction to the Respondent No. 1
to take appropriate legal proceedings for taking the
NC: 2024:KHC:7083
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.
(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."
2. Heard Sri.H.J.Ananda, learned counsel appearing for
petitioners and Sri.K.V.Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1.
3. Both, the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and
1st 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.
4. This Court, in Writ Petition No.810 of 2024, has held
as follows:
"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.
NC: 2024:KHC:7083
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.
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.
6. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner to
approach the DRT, the petition stands disposed."
5. 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.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CT:SS
