IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5420 of 2009(V) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PAUL P.A., S/O. PONMANI ANTONY, AGED 40 YEARS RESIDING IN BUILDING No.I/347, PARLAM PANCHAYATH, KODANUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.SIVARAM R. MENON, ADVOCATE. MR. V. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, THRISSUR ROUND, SOUTH BRANCH, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. FANCY MOHAN, W/O. P. MOHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KODANNOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. P.A. RAJAN, KAINOOR NAGAR, KIZHAKKAMPATTUKARA, KIZHAKKEKKOTTA, THRISSUR. BY MR. SAJI VARGHESE, SC FOR SBT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5420 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be the lessee of building No.I/347 in Sy. No.137/1 of Parlam Panchayath, Kodannur, Thrissur Village. Ext.P1 is the rent deed that he has allegedly executed with the 2nd respondent land lord. It is stated that the 1st respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, and that in pursuance thereof he is likely to be evicted from the premises. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed praying that he be given two months time to surrender vacant possession of the building. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Bank on instructions questioned the very bonafides of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is a tenant of the 2nd respondent, who stood as a guarantor for the loan availed of by her husband. It is stated that when securitization proceedings were initiated, that was challenged by the borrower before this Court as WP(C) WP(C) No.5420/2009 -2- No.1327/2008. That writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and thereafter the borrower filed S.A.No.37/2008 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal gave three months time to surrender possession. It is stated that still possession was not surrendered. Finally the Bank took symbolic possession of the premises on 06/02/2008 and that at that time, it was the borrower and 2nd respondent who were in occupation of the premises. It is stated that as at present, the Bank has made an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for an order under Section 14 of the Act. Apprehending that the Commissioner appointed will initiate proceedings, this writ petition has been set up at the instance of the borrower and the 2nd respondent. 3. Thus the dispute raised by the Bank is not only about the bonafides of the petitioner but also on his very status as the lessee. In this writ petition apart from Ext.P1, the unregistered document purported to be executed by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, nothing else has been produced to indicate that the petitioner is a bonafide lessee and is in actual possession. Proceedings in this case, as disclosed by the learned counsel for the Bank, show that considerable indulgence has already been shown by the Bank and WP(C) No.5420/2009 -3- the DRT. In the factual situation as highlighted by the Bank, I do not think that this Court will be justified in showing any further indulgence to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg