IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6297 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.T.MUTHU @ THAPASYA MUTHU, S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 65 YEARS, VII/879, BIJU NIVAS, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH, SANTHA LODGE BUILDINGS, POST OFFICE LINK ROAD, ERNAKULAM BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. ARUL SREENIVASH, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, RAGHAVAN, NORTH ATHIKESAVAN TEMPLE, KUNNAMPURAM, DESOM P.O., ALUVA. R1 BY SC SMT. LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 6297 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 22, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against the proceedings initiated against the mortgaged person under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the 2nd respondent who had mortgaged the property in 2004. The commissioner appointed in pursuance to an order under sec.14 of the Act has called upon the petitioner, being the occupant of the house, to vacate from the house and it is in this context the writ petition has been filed. 2. Though the petitioner offers to discharge the liability, in view of the facts of this case I do not think the petitioner is entitled to do so. 3. It is pointed out by the standing counsel for the bank that a loan of Rs.12 lakhs was availed of by the 2nd respondent mortgaging WP(C) 6297/08 Page numbers the property in 2004. It is stated that following the defaults in repayment, the account was classified as NPA in 2005 and a notice under sec.13(2) of the Act was also issued on 18.7.2005. There was no response and finally the notice under sec.13(4) was affixed in the premises on 16.11.2005. Thereafter the bank obtained an order under sec.14 of the Act on 29.12.2006 and a Commissioner was also appointed on 19.12.2007. It is thereafter that the commissioner has issued Ext.P5 on 15.2.2008. Then the petitioner, who is only an occupant of the house, has filed this writ petition and the loanee has not chosen to challenge the proceedings. 4. From the facts it is evident that since 2004 there has not been any payment and the person who has availed of the loan and mortgaged the property is not contesting the proceedings. True, the petitioner has a case that the property originally belonged to him and that the property was transferred to the 2nd respondent without consideration. In these proceedings I am not called upon to examine the correctness of these averments, but I need only say that the ownership of the property remains with the 2nd respondent who had availed of the loan. WP(C) 6297/08 Page numbers 5. Thus, this is a case of chronic default and hence the bank cannot be faulted for the action it has taken. The petitioner, being a stranger to the proceedings, is not entitled to the relief sought for. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-