IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10922 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABDUL SALAM, PROPRIETOR, CROWN TEX, T.C.28/2322, SREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, A.R.M.BRANCH-II, 55 ETHIRAJ SALAI, CHENNAI-600 088. 2. M/S.EAST WEST TRAVEL & TRADE LINKS LTD., 75 F, NEHRU ROAD, NEAR CENATUR HOTEL, VILA PAREL (E), MUMBAI- 400 099, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR. 3. NASIRUDDIN A WAHID, M/S.EAST WEST TRAVEL & TRADE LINKS LTD., 75 F, NEHRU ROAD, NEAR CENTAUR HOTEL, VILA PAREL (E), MUMBAI-400 099. 4. SHIHABDDIN A WAHID, EAST WEST TRAVEL & TRADE LINKS LTD., 75 F, NEHRU ROAD, NEAR CENTAUR HOTEL, VILA PAREL (E),MUMBAI-400 009. BY G.P. SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 10922 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the tenant to the property, over which the security interest has been created by the borrower of a loan from the respondent bank, has approached this court with the following prayers; i). To direct the respondents to drop proceedings initiated under Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. ii). To call for records leading to Exhibit P2 and quash the same. Iii). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to keep in abeyance the operation of Exhibit P2 pending disposal of this writ petition. iv). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as a tenant in the building. v). To pass such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, who submits on instructions that the claim put forth by the petitioner is not liable to be entertained under any circumstances as there is absolutely no question of any privity of contract WPC NO. 10922.2010 -2- between the petitioner and the Bank and that apart the petitioner cannot have any better right over and above the rights and interest of the landlord in view of the admitted fact that he is only a tenant. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the issue is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of This court in Business India Builders & Developers Ltd. v. Union Bank of India (2007 (2) KLT 237). This Court has already passed a similar verdict. Under such circumstances, this Court holds that the tenant cannot have any right over and above that of the landlord so as to continue occupation of the premises in question. In the above circumstances, absolutely no interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to pursue any action in accordance with law, if at all he is interested, to acquire the rights and interests over of the property. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. dpk WPC NO. 10922.2010 -3- dpk