M. NAGAPRASANNA
Syed Imdadulla – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner claiming to be the bonafide tenant in the property that is now brought to sale by the 1st respondent/Canara Bank on account of the 2nd respondent/owner defaulting in repayment to the Bank, seeks quashment of the possession notice dtd. 10/2/2022 issued by the Bank.
2. Heard Sri.V.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/Canara Bank.
3. Facts in brief are as follows:
The petitioner enters into a rent agreement with the 2nd respondent, the owner of a particular premises which was mortgaged to the Canara Bank against a loan that was taken by him. The dues are now to the tune of Rs.2,09,12,779.00 which is to be made good by the owner. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in terms of an agreement dtd. 5/3/2021 and further claims that he is in possession of the property as a tenant even as on date. The possession notice now issued on 10/2/2022 will lead to the petitioner coming to the streets as he would be dispossessed. It is in that light the petitioner has approached this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this Court has passed orders w
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.