- (1.) Written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, by way of short affidavit, is taken on record.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing letters dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure P-8) and 09.05.2012 (Annexure P-9) whereby proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, the 'SARFAESI Act') were initiated and the District Magistrate, Chandigarh directed that possession be taken of the property, i.e., Bay Shop No.49, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh, without issuance of any notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing.
(3.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1968 by the original owner, Himat Singh and Baldev Singh, for running business in the name and style of Krishna Dry Cleaner Dyers & Darners and was paying rent to the landlord. An application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was sent by respondent No.3, State Bank of India to the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, for taking over physical possession of the property mortgaged in the account of M/s Health Biotech Limited. On an enquiry made by the petitioner, he came to know that the said property was sold by the original owners, Himat Singh and Baldev Singh to someone and lastly it was purchased by Paramjeet Arora who raised a loan by mortgaging the said shop and other properties. As he had become defaulter, the Bank had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act but no notice under Sub-sections (2) & (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner though he was occupying the tenanted premises from the original owner since 1968. The Bank had issued notices to respondent No.4 through its Directors and had filed an application to take possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the District Magistrate, Chandigarh, who had written a letter dated 09.05.2012 to the Tehsildar (R), Chandigarh to take possession of the said shop. Petitioner had not been issued a notice regarding the proceedings and, accordingly, it was prayed that he being a lawful tenant, could not be ejected by the Bank as he was not a defaulter or a borrower from the Bank. Accordingly, this Court was approached by way of filing the present writ petition and the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed vide order dated 28.05.2012.;