IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1946 OP (DRT) NO. 129 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SA NO.157 OF 2024 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- 2, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

ANITHA D AGED 62 YEARS TC NO. 4/777(2), KALLUVILAVEEDU, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003 BY ADV E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENTS:

1 SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED REP. BY ITS AUTHOURIZED OFFICER, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 46, WHITE ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600014

2 ANIL KUMAR S.

AGED 49 YEARS S/O. SASEENDRAN, RADHAKRISHNA BHAVAN, PANANGODE, VENGANNUR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695523 THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2024 Petitioner is the lessee of the 2^nd respondent. A Lease Agreement was executed on 10.04.2019 and it was regularly renewed upto 26.01.2024. Now, she is holding the leased premises as a statutory tenant.

2. After the execution of Lease Agreement, the

2^nd respondent availed two loans by mortgaging the leased property. When the 2^nd respondent committed default in repayment, the 1^st respondent initiated proceedings to take possession of the property. Demand Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued on 21.07.2023 and thereafter, they had filed application under Section 14 of the Act, 2002.

3. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram issued Ext.P2 notice intimating that she is executing the order on 07.02.2024 at 2.00 p.m. But on that date, the execution of the order was deferred and further intimated that she will be again present in the secured asset for executing any date thereafter.

4. The 1^st respondent filed Section 14 application suppressing the fact that the secured asset was under lease prior to the mortgage and thereby obtained an order. The attempt of the 1^st respondent to summarily evict a statutory tenant, who is occupying the leased premises on the basis of valid lease agreement and remains therein after the lease period by remitting rent without default, is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Though the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing Exts.P3 and P4, the Debts Recovery Tribunal did not stay the proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam erred in issuing notice to the respondents in Ext.P4 stay petition without considering the fact that the secured asset is in possession of the petitioner as a tenant before mortgaging the same with the 1^st respondent and the petitioner is a statutory tenant.

6. The petitioner apprehends eviction on illegal means. Hence, the Original Petition is filed for a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam to dispose of Ext.P4 stay application and till then the petitioner may not be evicted from the leased property, contends the petitioner.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. From the pleadings, it is evident that aggrieved by the securitisation proceedings initiated against the property where the petitioner is a tenant, the petitioner filed a Securitisation Application on 19.12.2023. Subsequently, the Advocate Commissioner issued notice on 23.01.2024. The petition for stay filed by the petitioner came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 26.02.2024.

9. The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered the interim application of the petitioner. The Tribunal as per Ext.P5 order held that the document filed by the petitioner would indicate that the tenancy is not extended after 26.01.2024. On that premises, the Tribunal directed to issue summons / notice to the defendants / respondents in the main Securitisation Application. The case now stands posted to

04.04.2024.

10. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petition