IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36760 of 2010(T) -------------------------- CMP.2446/2010 of C.J.M., ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BANERJI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PERUMBAKKATTU HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.364-35,(VATTATHIL HOUSE) ALAPPUSHA WEST VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. JOSEPH HITLER, S/O. ESTHAPPAN, VATTAHIL HOUSE, VADACKAL MURI, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. ADV.SRI. A.SP. KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36760 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner claims to be a tenant in occupation of a residential building situated in a property owned by the 3rd respondent covered under Document No:159/2002 of the Sub Registrar Office, Alappuzha, which is executed in the year 2002. The building in question is bearing No.364-35. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent had availed loan from respondents 1 and 2 by mortgaging the property having an extent of 8.09 Ares comprised in Sy.No:538/12/2/2 (R.Sy.No.159/38-3) in Alappuzha West Village and that, under the guise of the proceedings initiated for taking over possession of the secured assets, the respondents are now proceeding against the property upon which the petitioner is residing. It is the case of the petitioner that the property which is mortgaged by the 3rd respondent, is distinct and separate from the property wherein the house in question situates and that property which contains the house is in no way charged for securing the loan. According to the petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, is taking steps to evict the petitioner from the house in question W.P.(C).36760/10 -2- and to take over possession of the property. Therefore he seeks interference of this court. 2. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the respondents will proceed only against the property which is mortgaged, after properly identifying the same and that if the property upon which the petitioner is residing was not mortgaged for securing the loan, the same will not be proceeded against. 3. The above submission is recorded and the writ petition is accordingly closed. It is made clear that respondents 1 and 2 will be free to proceed against the property wherein the petitioner is residing, if it is clearly identified that the said property is the mortgaged property. On the other hand, it is also made clear that, if any proceedings is initiated with respect to the property which was not mortgaged, the petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate remedies as provided under the statute. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb