Sajukumar S vs The Branch Manager
2025 Latest Caselaw 8000 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sajukumar S vs The Branch Manager on 16 April, 2025

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

                                             2025:KER:32548




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

                             &

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                    WA NO. 746 OF 2025

      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.14157 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
          SAJUKUMAR S.,
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O.SADASIVAN ASSARI,RESIDING AT MEENAKSHI
          BHAVAN, VEILOOR, MURUKKUMPUZHA P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695302

         BY ADVS. B.KRISHNA MANI
         MAHADEV M.J.
         N.V.SANDHYA
RESPONDENT/S:
    1     THE BRANCH MANAGER,
          INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,ANOOPARA BRANCH, ATTINGAL,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024

    2    RAJESH S.R,
         AGED 46 YEARS
         S/O.SURENDRA BABU, S.S. NIVAS, GANDHI SMARAKAM,
         PERUMKUZHY P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305

    3    SUGESH,
         AGED 42 YEARS
         S/O.SURENDRA BABU,S.S. NIVAS, GANDHI SMARAKAM,
         PERUMKUZHY P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695305

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                                  2025:KER:32548




                     AMIT RAWAL & P.M.MANOJ, JJ.
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
                             W.A. No.746 of 2025
          ------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 16th day of April, 2025


                                   JUDGMENT

AMIT RAWAL,J

The appellant/petitioner had not been successful before the

learned Single Bench in claiming the relief qua protection of

possession against the eviction on the ground that he is a tenant of

the lessor who had been in default on account of non payment of the

dues of the Bank. It is an attempt to forcibly evict the petitioner

under the garb of default. The appellant/petitioner had taken four

rooms on possession, one room is in occupation of the workers,

another with the material and two were for display.

2. Sri.Sunil Shankar Standing Counsel for the 1st

respondent accepts notice and submits that possession has already

been taken over, whereas the aforementioned plea submitted by the

counsel for the Bank has been controverted. Be that as it may. The

fact remains that as per the amended provisions of Section 17(4A) of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short 'SARFAESI Act')

amended with effect from 01.09.2016, the tenant has the remedy to

approach the Tribunal for seeking the protection of the forcible

coercion.

2025:KER:32548

3. Thus, we relegate the appellant/petitioner to approach

the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17 of

the SARFAESI Act. In case the petitioner approaches the Debts

Recovery Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today, the

objection qua limitation would not be taken and the status quo qua

the possession as it exists today urged before us during the course of

arguments, shall be maintained.

Writ appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

SSS