H.V. Ramakrishna and Others vs Syndicate Bank and Others

Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—The petitioners claimed to be the lessees of the portions of the residential premises bearing No. 264, situated at 12th Cross, BEML Layout, Busaveshvaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. They claim to be the tenants under respondents 2 and 3. It is their case that they have been residing since long. Incidentally it is to be noticed that the first respondent had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act, more so, u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The learned Magistrate has granted the said application and directed the Sheristhedar to take possession of the property from the respondents in accordance with law. The jurisdictional policy were also directed to render assistance in executing the order. This order is passed on 12.10.2009.

Apparently, the claim of the petitioners that they are lessees cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the document which are sought to be pressed into service are executed only on 16.11.2009, i.e., after nearly one month from the date of passing of the order. Indeed, if the claim of the petitioners is that they are tenants since long, the lease documents ought to have been executed much earlier. Hence, I am of the view that the question of interfering with the order u/s 14 of the Securitisation Act does not arise.