IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15682 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HANEEFA KUNJU, SAMNA MANZIL, VALATHUNGAL CHERI, IRAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SANOOJA A., D/O.ABDUL SALAM, SAMNA MANZIL, VALATHUNGAL CHERI, IRAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. 3. SAMNA A., D/O.ABDUL SALAM, SAMNA MANZIL, VALATHUNGAL CHERI, IRAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. LIJU. M.P MR. YEHIAKHAN A RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CHAMAKKADA BRANCH, CHAMAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. ADV.A.G.ALEXANDER, (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER), 'KONTOOR MOUNT', ZION, KAIRALI JUNCTION, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM. 3. ROY MOL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ROY FABRICS, MOTTEDATHU HOUSE, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV MR. V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY MR. K.P.SUDHEER R2 MR. PRATHEESH.P R3 MR. ALEXANDER GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15682 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners, who were the tenants of the premises owned by the third respondent, were constrained to approach this Court because of the coercive proceedings taken by the Bank, in the course of the steps taken under the SARFAESI Act, for the realization of the amount stated as due from the 3rd respondent under a loan transaction. 2. Pursuant to the interim order dated 3.6.2010, the building, which has already taken possession of, with the help of the second respondent/Advocate Commissioner appointed by the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as per the Ext. P3 order in Ext. P2 petition filed under Section 14 of the Act, was caused to be opened and the study materials and hall ticket of the 3rd petitioner were permitted to be taken out. The only case of the petitioners is that, the movables inside the building exclusively belong to the petitioners and that the petitioners may be permitted to retrieve them. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/landlord submits that, some of the movables in the premises belong to the 3rd respondent and that the said respondent does not have any objection in permitting the petitioners to take out their movables, to be effected in presence of the 3rd respondent. W.P. (C) No. 15682 of 2010 : 2 : 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that, the Bank does have any objection at all for releasing the movables, subject to the consensus between the 3rd respondent and the petitioners i.e the landlord and the tenants. 5. In the above said circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to take out the concerned movables kept in the premises, which are not objected otherwise by the respondents. This shall be caused to be done by the respondent Bank in presence of the 3rd respondent. The date and time concerned for facilitating such removal shall be let known by the Bank, both to the petitioners as well as to the third respondent forthwith, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd