IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33003 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PRINCY BOBAN, AGED 29, W/O.BOBAN PHILIP, MANAKKU HOUSE, MEPRAL P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHIEF MANAGER, THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MEPRAL BRANCH, THIRUVALLA. 3. P.B.PADMAKUMAR, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. BRINCY SARA PHILIP, W/O.METHEWS, PALLEDATHIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.33003 of 2008-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The 4th respondent is the sister in law of the petitioner. According to her, her husband and the 4th respondent's husband jointly conducted a business in pickle manufacturing with the aid of a loan availed by the 4th respondent. On default in repayment, the facility has been recalled and the transaction classified as a non-performing asset and Section 13(2) notice was issued in June, 2007. Following that, in exercise of authority under Section 13(4), the bank has taken possession following the procedure prescribed in the said section and the security enforcement rules by serving possession notice and publishing it in the newspapers. Therefore, the taking over the possession in terms of law is essentially complete, though dispossession in the de facto sense remains. An order has been issued by the WP(C)33003/08 -: 2 :- CJM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. This means that following the de jure possession, the bank will take de facto possession immediately upon enforcement of that order. The security property belonged to the husband of the petitioner. She says that she and her husband are residing there and her husband has now gone abroad, though he had been under treatment for certain psychiatric disorders as evidenced by Ext.P1. The transaction is not disputed. The outstandings have accrued. There is no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned proceedings. In fact, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the bank. Nor does the property belong to her. But the only plea is that the petitioner may not be dispossessed and thrown out of the residential building for a period of two months to enable her to pay off the outstandings with the help of her relatives and save the home. I do not find any ground to further deter the bank WP(C)33003/08 -: 3 :- from taking actual physical possession. Under such circumstances, it is hereby ordered that if the petitioner surrenders actual physical possession by executing necessary kaichit in favour of the bank, she will be permitted to occupy the building for a period of three months paying occupational charges at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and within which she may try to save the property from further distress action. If the transaction is not settled within three months, the bank will be at liberty to further proceed with the matter. This order is being issued as above because the petitioner gives up all contentions, including right to move the DRT. If there is default in paying the occupational charges as above or settling the transaction as aforesaid within the time fixed above, the writ petition will stand dismissed and the bank will immediately throw the petitioner out of occupation from the building. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Sha/ JUDGE.