INDIAN BANK Vs. MOH LEATHERS PVT LTD
LAWS(DR)-2003-9-12
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 02,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A. Subbulakshmy, J. (Chairperson) - (1.)AGGRIEVED against the Order passed by the PO, DRT-I, Chennai, directing the Bank to pay Rs. 5,000/- per mensem as interim rent and Rs. 60,000/- initially to the third party, the appeal is preferred by the appellant Bank.
(2.)One MOH Leathers Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant under the landlord the third party MOH Leathers Pvt. Ltd. did not pay the rent and it committed wilful default and rent control proceedings were initiated and eviction was ordered, EP was filed and eviction order was executed and the landlord third party took possession of the premises through Court. At the time of handing over the possession to the landlord, the hypothecated goods, plant and machineries, stocks and raw materials of MOH Leathers Pvt. Ltd. were present in the premises and the landlord was handed over possession only with these hypothecated goods. The Bank then sent letter dated 21.7.2001 to the landlord stating that the Bank is holding first charge on the hypothecated plant and machineries, stocks and raw materials and asked the landlord not to remove any of the hypothecated plant and machineries, stocks and raw materials without prior permission of the Bank if he does so, the Bank will initiate legal action against the landlord. So, the landlord has no other option except to keep the hypothecated goods in the premises and the landlord was prevented from removing the goods and all these goods were only in the premises of the landlord.
The landlord sent a latter to the Bank dated 27.7.2001 directing the Bank to pay rent for the premises or to remove the goods and has also asked for compensation because the landlord was prevented from using the premises by keeping the hypothecated goods. Then the landlord sent legal notice to the Bank dated 10.12.2001 directing the Bank to settle the claim and also to take the articles from the premises without causing any hardship to the landlord and if there is any delay in that action, the Indian Bank shall be held responsible for that. The landlord was keeping these articles in the premises from 1.8.2001 and that too at the instance of the Bank only the landlord was keeping all the goods because the Bank sent letter to the landlord stating that if the hypothecated goods are removed without prior permission of the Bank the landlord will be held responsible and legal action will be taken against him. On that apprehension, the landlord did not take any steps to remove the goods from the premises and the landlord was keeping the hypothecated goods in the premises and ultimately on the petition filed by the Bank for appointment of Commissioner and for sale of goods, the goods were taken possession by the Commissioner and the goods were removed from the premises on 6.8.2002. For that one year, the landlord was having custody of the goods and these goods were in the possession of the landlord.

(3.)THE Counsel for the appellant Bank submits that the petition filed by the Bank for appointment of Commissioner was pending before the DRT, only after Order was passed by the PO, DRT, the goods were taken possession by the Commissioner and the goods were sold and the Bank is in no way responsible for any rent to be paid to the landlord.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.