IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33273 of 2008(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HAMZA, S/O.PAREETHKUTTY HAJI, 11/309-C, CHOORNIKKARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,ANGAMALY BRANCH, ANGAMALY. 2. SASIKALA DEVI, MONKAYIL, CHOORNIKKARA, ALUVA. SRI. SATHISH NINAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, ALONG WITH WPC. 33274 OF 2008 AND 33275 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).Nos.33273 of 2008-J, 33274 of 2008-J & 33275 of 2008-J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioners in these writ petitions claim that they are in occupation of the three residential premises over which the first respondent has taken action under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act following demand under Section 13 (2). The claim of the petitioners is based on an alleged transaction in their favour by the debtor of the bank. The debtor created an equitable mortgage in favour of the bank. The petitioners say that thereafter, the debtor created a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the petitioners. Notwithstanding that those usufructuary mortgages are not evidenced by any registered document, the fact remains that the quality of such a transaction cannot always be WP(C)33273/08 & con.cases -: 2 :- one on the basis of which the petitioners could claim independent right. Whatever that be, the petitioners have no legal right to continue in occupation. To put it strictly, the petitioners are only occupiers of buildings belonging to the bank over which it had exercised a measure under Section 13(4) way back in December, 2007. The petitioners have not even paid occupation charges to the bank. Yet, as a measure of permitting the petitioners to find an alternate accommodation, it is directed that the petitioners will not be dispossessed until the 30th November, 2008 as a last opportunity. The Chief Judicial Magistrate will ensure that if the petitioners continue in possession after 30- 11-2008, they are dispossessed on 1st December, 2008. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the CJM for further action. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/