DEEPAK AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. Pramod Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent -Bank.
(2.) THE petitioner before this Court is a tenant in a premises no. 760 Indra Nagar Colony, Niranjanpur, P.O. New Forest, Dehradun. He is aggrieved primarily by the action of respondent no. 2 i.e. Punjab National Bank through its Chief Manager, Karanpur, Dehradun, who has initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act.). The contention of the petitioner is that he has not taken any loan and has no liability towards the Bank. He is simply a tenant on the accommodation, which has been mortgaged by the landlord to the Bank i.e. respondent no. 2, which has now initiated proceedings under the said Securitisation Act. In the present case respondent no. 3 had taken a loan from respondent no. 2 i.e. Punjab National Bank, Karanpur, Dehradun in the year 2006. Since the loan was not repaid, a notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Act to respondent no. 3 by respondent no. 2. Thereafter the Bank has moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun for taking possession of the mortgaged property, which is a residential accommodation. The present petitioner is a tenant in the said accommodation and his prayers before this Court are as follows: -
1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property nor to evict the petitioner from the part of tenancy in the property bearing no. 760 Indra Nagar Colony, Dehradun.
2. Issue any other and further order or direction which this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature of facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Award the cost to the petitioner.
(3.) THE contention of the respondent -Bank before this Court in its counter affidavit is that it has been specially stated by the Bank that the petitioner is not a bona fide tenant of the property, which has been mortgaged to the Bank. Moreover, the petition has for all practical purposes been filed by the petitioner on behalf of the borrower Rajinder Kishore Srivastava and the borrower is unnecessarily raising the plea on behalf of a tenant so that possession may not be taken by the Bank. In order to substantiate his argument the Bank has drawn the attention of this Court to a suit for injunction filed by the tenant i.e. the present petitioner against respondent no. 3 i.e. landlord being original suit no. 263/09, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun. The attention has been drawn by the counsel for the Bank Mr. S.K. Jain of the order passed by the court on the temporary injunction application on 24.3.2009. The order indicates that at the time of passing of the order on the temporary injunction application, a caveat had already been filed by the landlord, who was present in the court and he did not object to the status quo being granted in favour of the tenant i.e. the plaintiff.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.