ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J, J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH the matter was listed for hearing on IA. I of 2007 for vacating the interim order of stay, I have taken up the main matter itself for disposal with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking, interalia, a declaration that the petitioner's leasehold rights over the premises bearing No. 209, ist Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore, are not regulated and/or covered by Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Securitisation Act' for short) and consequently the writ of certiorari for quashing the first respondent's communication, dated 8th December, 2005 (Annexure-D), which calls upon the petitioner to vacate the said premises before 15th December, 2005.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid premises was leased by the second respondent to the petitioner on a monthly rent of rs. 40,710/- (Rupees forty thousand seven hundred ten only) vide lease agreement, dated 9th February, 2004. The petitioner claims to have paid a security deposit of Rs, 6,10,650/- (Rupees Six lakh ten thousand six hundred and fifty only ). It also claims to have spent rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh only) on interior decoration, computers, electrical fittings, fax machines, etc. , after taking the possession of the aforesaid premises in February, 2004. The photographs of the aforesaid properties and the infrastructure created therein are produced as Annexures B1 to B6.

( 4 ) WHEN thus stood the things, the petitioner received a letter, dated 8 December, 2005 (Annexure-D) from the first respondent informing that on the failure of the second respondent to clear the dues of the first respondent, the first respondent has initiated enforcement measures under the Securitisation Act. Further it is stated in the said letter that the first respondent has come to know that the petitioner is in occupation of the aforesaid premises, which is secured in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent called upon the petitioner to make alternative arrangements and to vacate the said premises before 15th December, 2005. The petitioner was further informed that the first respondent would approach the Chief Judicial magistrate / DC or any other appropriate forum for getting the possession of the aforesaid premises, under the provisions of the securitisation Act, if the petitioner does not vacate on its own.

( 5 ) THE petitioner had sent a reply, dated 14 December, 2005 (Annexure-K ). It is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of its said reply, some officers of the first respondent threatened that the petitioner would be thrown out of the aforesaid premises by resorting to the proceedings under Securitisation Act. Apprehending the imminent threat of dispossession under the provisions of the Securitisation Act, this petition is presented.

( 6 ) SRI Gururaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions: a) The aforesaid premises was given as non-possessory security. There has been no legal impediment for second respondent to lease the aforesaid premises to the petitioner. The petitioner is lawfully inducted into the aforesaid premises as a tenant. Therefore if the petitioner is to be dispossessed, it is only in accordance with the provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Even where the sale of assets takes place under Section 29 of the State Financial corporation Act, 1951 the tenant cannot be evicted without the due process of law. In this regard he cited the judgment of the Patna High court in the case of ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY ETC. vs STATE OF bihar. b) Sri Gururaj has also relied upon the judgment of Punjab and haryana High Court in the case of PREM GUPTA vs BANK OF maharashtra wherein it is held that a secured creditor is entitled to take only symbolic possession under the Securitisation Act. The gist of the judgment, as reported in the said Di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document