CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA Vs. AMIT PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions since involve the similar issues and as such the same have been directed to be listed together and have been heard together and now being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order passed on 28.07.2017 (annexure-5) in Civil Misc. Appeal No.07 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the order dated 04.01.2017 passed in Original Suit No.132 of 2016 rejecting petition under Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2 has been reversed by directing the respondent no.2, the petitioner herein, not to dispossess the plaintiff to the suit to the suit premises without following the due process of law till the disposal of the original suit.

(3.) The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in these writ petitions is that the petitioner bank has sanctioned the loan by keeping the property in question mortgaged by a collateral security on 17.12.2009, again having become non-performing assets a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002), in the month of October, 2015, thereafter resorting to the provision of Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 on 04.02.2016. The respondent No.1 namely Amit Pandey has entered into an agreement of tenancy on 10.10.2012 and started living in the aforesaid premises but when the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 has been issued against the respondent no.2 who happens to be landlord of the property in question, the suit has been filed by the respondent no.1 being Original Suit No.132 of 2016, pleading therein that he is monthly tenant of defendant no.1 namely Tabrez Alam, in respect of residential building fully described in the schedule on the monthly rent of Rs.2500/- and has been paying rent regularly to him on time but without any receipt, it came to know from a notice published on 07.02.2016 in a local Hindi Daily Newspaper namely "Prabhat Khabar" in respect of the building in which he is residing as tenant of the defendant no.1, pasting therein the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002, the bank has appeared and filed show cause, disputed the claim of the respondent no.1 by stating that the respondent no.2 is one of the Directors of M/s Jamshed Iron and Steel Private Company Limited and has got cash credit facility of Rs.300 Lakh (Rupees Three Crore) which was sanctioned on 26.07.2013 and got secured the loan after getting mortgage of the property of the defendant no.1 and when the loanee become irregular and despite of repeated request and intimation the loanee did not pay the loan amount and then the loan amount have became NPA which forced the petitioner bank to file a suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for a decree of Rs.3,32,09,830/- against the respondent no.2 and other loanees and also proceeded under the provision of Act, 2002 and issued notice under Section 13(2) on 20.10.2013 and possession notice under Section 13(4) on 04.02.2016.