IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8931 of 2010(N) ------------------------- CMP.1367/2009 of C.J.M.,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.JOBRAN G.VARGHESE, S/O.SRI.VARGHESE, AGED 41 YEARS, SOLE PROPRIETOR, M/S.LOURDE MATHA CASHEW INDUSTRIES, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, FINANCE TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, FINANCE TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, KALOOR, KOCHI. 3. M/S. UNIVERSAL FOODS, ERAVIPUTHURKADAI, KATTATHURAI P.O., KANYAKUMARI REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 4. TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-2 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1-2 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------- W.P(C). No. 8931 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the tenant of the premises in question, over which security interest was created by the third respondent, who had availed a loan from the first respondent. The borrower did not choose to satisfy the liability towards the first respondent Bank; under which circumstance, the first respondent proceeded with steps invoking the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition contending that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the premises at any time, without any demur and handover the possession to the Bank or any other person as directed by the Bank and further that he will not make any claim over the property in any manner. Based on the said submission and also the willingness expressed by the petitioner to file an affidavit to that effect, as projected in Ground 'G' of the writ petition, the coercive proceedings were intercepted for a period of one month as per the interim order dated 17.3.2010. The petitioner has filed an affidavit as well. 2. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that, in the course of the steps for realisation of the W.P.(C).No.8931/2010 2 amount due, the Bank has filed O.A. No.311/2006 before the DRT, Ernakulam against the owner/borrower and the latter has filed a counter affidavit in the above OA filed by the Bank, seeking for a stay of all further proceedings and that the Tribunal has passed an interim order of stay, which however was vacated subsequently, based on the contentions raised on behalf of the Bank. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the petitioner herein being a tenant, does not have a better right and title over the rights and liberties of the landlord and as such, the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy, if any, before the DRT, Ernakulam for getting impleaded in the above OA. This Court does not express anything on merits and no interference is warranted in this Writ Petition. However, in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the exercise as above, further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE ) vps W.P.(C).No.8931/2010 3 W.P.(C).No.8931/2010 4