IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7788 of 2011(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S. MANOHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SATHYANESAN, RESIDING AT SHAJI BHAVAN, ERUMAKUSHY, KOTTOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER). BY ADV. MR.A.S.P. KURUP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7788 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner had defaulted repayment of a housing loan availed from the respondent Bank. It is evident that when proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated, the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion. Through Ext.P1 judgment this court permitted the petitioner to regularise the account by paying the amount overdue for payment, in 2 equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 30.6.2010 and on or before the 30th of the next month thereafter. On failure to comply with the condition imposed in Ext.P1 judgment the respondent Bank had invoked Section 14(1). According to the petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had already taken over possession of the property, on 7.1.2011, as evidenced from Ext.P4 Mahazar. It is the contention of the petitioner that thereafter he had remitted a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as per Ext.P5 receipt and the loan account now stands regularised. Hence the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in permitting reoccupation of the house and also in permitting continued payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the W.P.(C).7788/11 -2- original schedule. 2. Heard, standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is submitted that, the steps for taking over possession of the property was pursued only because the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment. however, it is mentioned that, the Advocate Commissioner deputed from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court has put an additional lock on the gate of the residence since the building was seen locked at the time when he visited the property. It is also conceded that the petitioner had effected payment as revealed in Ext.P5. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this court is not inclined to interfere since sufficient indulgence was already shown in permitting regularisation. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had effected considerable payment after the property was taken over possession, I am inclined to consider the limited prayer to permit reoccupation of the house, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting future monthly instalments without fail. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to clear payment of balance amount if any remaining as overdue (any amount in default), on or before 31.3.2011. On payment of the said amount the respondent shall permit the W.P.(C).7788/11 -3- petitioner to occupy the building for the purpose of residence of his family, subject to condition of the petitioner submitting an undertaking before the respondent to the effect that if any default is committed with respect to the payment of future monthly instalments, he will surrender the vacant possession of the building without raising any dispute. 5. If the petitioner complies with the above condition, the respondent shall permit the petitioner to continue payment of future monthly instalments in accordance with the original schedule of repayment. 6. It is made clear that the reoccupation permitted as above will be subject to legal possession being retained by the respondent Bank in view of the take over effected under Section 14(1). If any obstruction is caused with respect to recovery of possession, on the event of any default, the respondent can resort to seek assistance either from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court or from the police authorities having jurisdiction over the local area. 7. It is further made clear that the petitioner is prevented from raising any subsequent challenge against such proceedings. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb