IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 36961 of 2004(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. CHANDU S.BABU, BABU STUDIO, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SATHY BABU, S/O.SAHADEVAN, KARINGOTTUTHODU HOUSE, KADAKKAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HONKONG SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. (HSBC) TRIVANDRUM BRANCH, POST BOX NO.2244, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR.K.P.HARIDAS, GURUMANDIRAM, VPVIII/30, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE FOR R2 MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R2 MR.PRAVEEN K. JOY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26961/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DT. 2.4.03 BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 31.3.04 FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE KOLLAM TO THE IST PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TWO OTHERS. P4:- COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT. 9.12.04. P5:- COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN KERALA KAUMADHI DT. 20.11.04. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 36961 OF 2004 ......................................................................... Dated this the 15th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is having only a lease hold right over the property in question, is before this Court challenging the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued by the respondent Bank invoking the relevant provisions under the SARFAESI Act. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even though the matter was admitted and an interim order of stay was granted, it happened to be vacated subsequently after hearing both the sides. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the tenant cannot have a better right than that of a landlord and that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Shameem vs City Police Commissioner (2005(4) KLT S.N.70 Case No.96 ) and also as per the decision rendered by another W.P.(C) No. 36961 OF 2004 2 Division Bench in Business India Builders and Developers Ltd. v. The Union Bank of India & Others [2007(1) KLJ 518]. This court does not find any merit to interfere. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk