IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 11107 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.K.ALEXANDER, S/O.K.E.KOSHY, AGED 61 YEARS, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE, T.B.ROAD, THRISSUR - 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, (THE AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER SARFAESI ACT), THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 3. M/S.GUARDIAN VENEERS (P) LIMITED, 13/1057, EARAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. 4. MR.VARGHESE MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW VARGHESE, THEKKEDATHU VEETIL, EARAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. 5. MR.ANITHA VARGHESE, W/O.MR.VARGHESE MATHEW, THEKKEDATHU VEETIL, EARAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. 6. MRS.MARIAMMA MATHEW, W/O.MR.MATHEW VARGHESE, THEKKEDATHU VEETIL, EARAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. WPC NO.11107/08 - 2 - 7. MR.MATHEW VARGHESE, THEKKEDATHU VEETIL, EARAYILKADAVU, KOTTAYAM. 8. MR.BENNY K.MATHEW, S/O.K.J.MATHEW, KAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTAYAM - 1. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC, SIB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 11107 OF 2008 V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th April, 2008. J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P8, a possession notice issued by the bank requiring the petitioner to vacate the residential building. Admittedly the property is a mortgaged item and therefore the competence of the bank to proceed against the property or bring it for sale cannot be questioned. The request made by the petitioner for releasing the property against payment of the value assessed by the bank is not acceptable to the bank on the ground of enhancement in the value. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, the only course open to the bank is that the bank should go ahead with the sale in terms of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. At this stage the counsel for the petitioner requests that the bank may not insist that he should vacate the building in W.P.(C) No. 11107 OF 2008 -2- question and offers that in the event of the bank concluding the sale and demanding surrender, petitioner will comply with that requirement. I feel in the circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the undertaking to vacate the building, should an occasion arises, the petitioner should be permitted to continue occupation of the premises. This is all the more so that the petitioner also has expressed his desire to participate in the auction that is to be held by the bank. In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the bank will be free to continue the proceedings against the property mentioned in Ext. P8, but, however, permitting the petitioner to continue in occupation in the meanwhile. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-