IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 11246 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.H. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.H. HAMEED RAWTHER, KOODATHINKAL HOUSE, MUNICIPAL OFFICE JUNCTION, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.E.V.MOLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- VIJAYA BANK, MANJERI PLAZA, PERUNNA. P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11246 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue an order of writ of mandamus or order or direction to respondents to dispossess the tenants from the secured asset an act in accordance with law at the earliest. b) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any more amount in to the account as the monthly rent ought to have been collected from the tenant is sufficient to clear of the debt/settlement of the account. c) To order for grant compensation to the petitioner for the loss and hardship caused to the petitioner on account of the inaction of the bank. d) To restore possession of the locked two rooms immediately to the petitioner to find some means for his living during his old age. e) Pass such other orders which are incidental and proper to secure interest of justice to the petitioner. 2. It is evident that, consequent to failure of the petitioner in repaying loan availed from the respondent Bank, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated and the property along with the building in question, which is the secured asset, was taken over possession by the respondent through the proceedings initiated under Section 14(1). It is evident that the Bank is now holding legal possession over the building in question by virtue of the W.P.(C).11246/11 -2- provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act. Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not seek any direction from this court with respect to eviction of the tenants or with respect to re-possession of any part of the building. It is left to the decision of the respondent Bank to deal with the property in accordance with the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act. 3. Grievance of the petitioner seems to be that, due to the indefinite keeping of the building without collecting proper rent and due to keeping of some of the rooms in a locked stage, he is prevented from discharging the liability and that the interest will be mounting. However, with respect to the arrears if any due from the tenants for the period during which the petitioner was in possession of the building, it is left open to him to take appropriate legal steps for realisation of such amounts. It is noticed that there is no justification on the part of the respondent in indefinitely keeping the property after taking over of the same under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, without resorting to further steps for disposal of such property and appropriation of the amounts due under the loan account. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the W.P.(C).11246/11 -3- appropriate authority in the respondent Bank seeking for an early disposal of the secured assets. If any such approach is made, the respondent shall take appropriate decision without any further delay. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb