[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Shaikh Sadiq @ Sadikh Pasha vs Unity Small Finance Bank Limited on 17 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
WP No. 1447 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 1447 OF 2026 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
SRI SHAIKH SADIQ @ SADIKH PASHA,
C/O ABDUL LATHIFF
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 72,
GROUND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS,
K.M. COLONY, SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. OMAR SHARIFF., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R 1. UNITY SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,
Location: BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 92,
HIGH COURT 3RD FLOOR, SREE VENKATESHWARA TOWERS,
OF
KARNATAKA SOUTH END ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
OPP. SURANA COLLEGE,
BENGALURU 560 011.
ALSO HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
UNIT NOS. 1201, 1202, 1203, 12TH FLOOR,
ANSAL BHAWAN, 16, K.G. MARG,
NEW DELHI 110 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
WP No. 1447 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. NZ STEEL CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY
SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.3/1,
2ND CROSS, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR,
NR ROAD,
BENGALURU 560002
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013
3. SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA,
S/O SRI MOHAMMED SHAFI ULLA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
C/O 72, 2ND CROSS,
K.M COLONY, SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK
BENGALURU 560011.
4. SMT SADIQA TARANNUM,
W/O SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
C/O 72, 2ND CROSS,
K.M COLONY, SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK
BENGALURU 560011.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO :
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION RESTRAINING
RESPONDENT 1, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND
REPRESENTATIVES FROM DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONER
FROM THE GROUND FLOOR PORTION OF MUNICIPAL NO. 72,
2ND CROSS, K.M. COLONY, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1ST
BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011, OTHERWISE THAN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE
PROCESS UNDER THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999,
CONSIDERING THE ANNEXURE-D RESPECTIVELY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
WP No. 1447 of 2026
HC-KAR
B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.12.2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND VACATION
CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN O.S. NO. 9120/2025, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS IT DECLINES TO GRANT AD-
INTERIM PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER, AS BEING
ARBITRARY, MECHANICAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14
AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC;
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs :
" a) issue a writ of mandamus and/or
any other appropriate writ, order or
direction restraining respondent
No.1, its officers, agents and
representatives from dispossessing
the petitioner from the ground floor
portion of Municipal No.72, 2nd
Cross, K.M. Colony, Siddapura,
Jayanagar 1st Block, Bengaluru
560011, otherwise than in
accordance with law and without
following due process under the
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999,
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
considering the annexure-d
respectively.
b) set aside the impugned order dated
24.12.2025 passed by the learned
II Addl. City civil and Vacation City
Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.
No.9120 of 2025, vide Annexure-A
insofar as it declines to grant ad-
interim protection to the petitioner,
as being arbitrary, mechanical and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution of India and etc;
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition,
are as follows:
3. The petitioner herein is the bona fide tenant of the
ground floor in Municipal No. 72, 2nd cross, K. M.
Colony, Siddapura, Jayanagar, 1st Block, Bengaluru.
He has been residing there for more than 5 years
initially under the previous owners and thereafter
under respondents Nos.3 and 4. Respondents No. 3
and 4 purchased the aforesaid property vide
registered sale deed dated 24.06.2022. Thereafter,
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
the petitioners tenancy was recorded by lease cum
rental agreement dated 12.01.2024 for a period
15.01.2024 to 15.01.2026 with total deposit of
Rs.6,50,000/- and monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. The
petitioner has no knowledge of any mortgage or
SARFAESI proceedings regarding the said property
till the officials of Respondent No.1 visited him.
Respondent No.1 officials came to the property and
wrote on wall that the property is mortgaged, pasted
a possession notice dated 20.11.2025 and
threatened the petitioner with forceful eviction.
4. Again the respondent officials threatened the
petitioners to return with the police for evicting the
petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.9120
of 2025 before the Vacation City Civil and Session's
Court, Bangalore, seeking the relief of permanent
injunction. The Trial Court has not granted the ad
interim ex parte injunction. However, it issued an
emergent notice on the said interim application vide
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
order dated 24.12.2025. It is contended that the
petitioner is a protected tenant under the Karnataka
Rent Act, 1999. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners tenancy is protected under the provisions
of the Karnataka Rent Act. He submits that the
tenants protected under the rent control statutes
cannot be dispossessed under the SARFAESI
proceedings. He submits that the remedy under
Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act') before the
Tribunal is structured only for the borrowers. The
petitioner is left remediless. he submits that the
action of respondent No.1 in taking the recovery
steps is arbitrary and is against the prescribed
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
procedure. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow
the petition.
7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. It is undisputed that, the petitioner is the tenant
under respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondents Nos.3
and 4 obtained the loan from Respondent No.1
institution. A default was committed by Respondent
Nos.3 and 4 in repayment of the loan amount.
Respondent No.1 initiated the recovery proceedings
under the provisions of the Act. A possession notice
dated 20.11.2025 came to be issued. The petitioner
filed a suit in O.S. No.9120 of 2025 before the
Vacation City Civil and Session's Court, Bangalore,
seeking the relief of permanent injunction. However,
the trial court has not granted the ad interim ex
parte injunction, but issued emergent notice vide
Order dated 24.12.2025.
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under
Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the borrowers
from respondent No.1. According to Section 17 of the
Act, any person aggrieved by the measures taken by
a secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act--
including borrowers, mortgagors, or third parties can
file an application under Section 17 of the Act to the
Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank
Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors reported in
AIR 2010 SC 3413, held in paragraph No.17 as
follows:
"17. There is another reason why the
impugned order should be set aside.
If respondent No.1 had any tangible
grievance against the notice issued
under Section 13(4) or action taken
under Section 14, then she could
have availed remedy by filing an
application under Section 17(1). The
expression `any person' used in
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
Section 17(1) is of wide import. It
takes within its fold, not only the
borrower but also guarantor or
any other person who may be
affected by the action taken
under Section 13(4) or Section
14. Both, the Tribunal and the
Appellate Tribunal are empowered to
pass interim orders under Sections 17
and 18 and are required to decide the
matters within a fixed time schedule.
It is thus evident that the remedies
available to an aggrieved person
under the SARFAESI Act are both
expeditious and effective.
Unfortunately, the High Court
overlooked the settled law that the
High Court will ordinarily not
entertain a petition under Article 226
of the Constitution if an effective
remedy is available to the aggrieved
person and that this rule applies with
greater rigour in matters involving
recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other
types of public money and the dues of
banks and other financial institutions.
In our view, while dealing with the
petitions involving challenge to the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
action taken for recovery of the public
dues, etc., the High Court must keep
in mind that the legislations enacted
by Parliament and State Legislatures
for recovery of such dues are code
unto themselves inasmuch as they
not only contain comprehensive
procedure for recovery of the dues
but also envisage constitution of quasi
judicial bodies for redressal of the
grievance of any aggrieved person.
Therefore, in all such cases, High
Court must insist that before availing
remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution, a person must exhaust
the remedies available under the
relevant statute."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner is a
person affected by the action taken under section
13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner ought to
have filed an application under section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
However, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.
No.9120 of 2025 seeking the relief of permanent
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9774
HC-KAR
injunction. The petitioner would have pursued the
said suit in agitating his grievance or would have
filed securitization application. Therefore, the present
petition is not maintainable in view of alternate
remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner
without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, has
filed this petition.
12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(I) The writ petition is dismissed.
(II) In view of the dismissal of the
petition, pending interlocutory
applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and
are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
CT:KHV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
