S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Claiming himself to be a tenant under the 2nd respondent from 1989 and continues to be in occupation for over 27 years and contending inter alia that he is aged about 61 years, and taking care of his three daughters and parents-in-law, sought to be forcibly evicted by the State Bank of Travancore, represented by the Branch Manager, authorised officer, Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai, the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their subordinates, men and agents, from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the property bearing Door No.8/88B, Chidambaranthan Street, C.Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043, without affording sufficient time of at-least 3 months to vacate the property as requested through the representation submitted by the petitioner on 15.10.2016.

2. Supporting the prayer sought for, averments have been made and it is the specific case of the petitioner that on 06.10.2016, few persons, came to the subject property, asking the petitioner and others to vacate, that the 1st respondent Bank informed the petitioner that they have necessary orders to take possession from the petitioner, and that they can even break open the house and throw all the household articles out of the house, and lock the same. Contention of the petitioner is that the people who came to the house have informed that within 3 or 4 days, they would come again.

3. According to the petitioner, he visited the 1st respondent bank on 13.10.2016 and sought for particulars, as to the loan details availed by the 2nd respondent, but no information was given to him. In the abovesaid circumstances, he has also lodged a complaint on 14.10.2016, to the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Pallavaram Police Station and also sent a letter dated 15.10.2016 to the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai. No acknowledgment is enclosed for the complaint dated 14.10.2016, and the same is extracted hereunder.

xxxx

4. A letter dated 15.10.2016, said to have been addressed to the Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai, is extracted hereunder.

xxxx

5. Contents of both the letters and other documents such as Voter ID dated 12.06.2009, Ration Card (June 2005), Telephone Bill dated 02.03.2006, Bank pass Book from 13.01.2007, Passport issued on 30.07.2009 and Driving Licence dated 26.02.2010, indicates that the writ petitioner has been in possession of the subject property.

6. By drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.29 and 30 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishal N.Kalsaria Vs. Bank of India and Others, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 762, Mr.G.Arul Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that statutory tenants are entitled to protection under the Rent Control Act and in such circumstances, 1st respondent Bank or anyone acting on their instructions cannot forcibly evict the petitioner by resorting to any unlawful means. Paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 are extracted.

"29. When we understand the factual matrix in the backdrop of the objectives of the above two legislations, the controversy in the instant case assumes immense significance. There is an interest of the bank in recovering the Non Performing Asset on the one hand, and protecting the right of the blameless tenant on the other. The Rent Control Act being a social welfare legislation, must be construed as such. A landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under the Rent Control Act, more so when the two legislations, that is the SARFAESI Act and the Rent Control Act operate in completely different fields. While SARFAESI Act is concerned with Non Performing Assets of the Banks, the Rent Control Act governs the relationship between a tenant and the landlord and specifies the rights and liabilities of each as well as the rules of e