IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 440 of 2008(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- P.THOMAS, S/O.C.K.PHILIP, AGED 53 YEARS, CHETTANAPALLIL, MANNAR-689 622. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, THIRUVALLA-689 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. P.A.FAISAL AZEEZ, KOLLEZHAMMADAM, MANNAR-689 622. 3. P.A.NOUSHAD, KOLLEZHAMMADAM, MANNAR-689 622. 4. ARUN BECHU.N., ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN C.M.P.NO.5279/2007 `ASWATHY', SANATHANAM, ALAPPUZHA-688 004. BY SRI.K.V.SURENDRANATH, SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 440 OF 2008 B ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a tenant of a premises against which proceedings have been initiated by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Being a tenant, petitioner cannot resist the steps taken by the Bank on the strength of the mortgage created by the landlord, and the petitioner rightly does not dispute the steps taken by the Bank. Apparently realising his limitations,, all that the petitioner seeks is that being a tenant who is carrying on business in the premises in question, he be given time till the end of March, 2008 in order to identify a place and shift his business. 2. I heard the counsel for the Bank, who points out that due to the default of the landlord, substantial amount is due to WPC 440/08 :2 : the respondent Bank and that in order to realise the same, steps had to be taken by the Bank. It is also pointed out that as part thereof, Bank is in the process of taking possession of the mortgaged assets and one of the assets so proceeded against is the premises that is now occupied by the petitioner. Bank also points out that if time as sought for is granted, that will create obstructions in the way of the Bank in realising the amounts due. 3. Having heard both sides, I am satisfied that the Bank cannot be faulted for any of the steps that they have taken. While at the same time, in view of the fact that the petitioner has made only a limited request to enable him to continue in the premises until a new premises is identified for shifting his business, I direct that occupation of the petitioner in the premises in question shall not be disturbed till 15th of February, 2008. In the meantime, it will be the petitioner's obligation to identify a new premise and shift to such premises. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp