JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the auction purchaser of a property over which security interest was created for a loan availed by respondents 4 and 5 from the third respondent. Consequent to default in repayment of the loan, proceedings for the enforcement of security interest were initiated. Possession of the secured asset was taken over by the Advocate Commissioner on 13.03.2018 and handed over to the third respondent.

2. Thereafter, in compliance with the statutory provisions, sale of the secured asset was held on 28.10.2021, and petitioner became the successful bidder, having bid the property for Rs.43,10,000/-. Subsequently, a sale certificate was executed and registered as document No.199/1/2022 before the Sub Registry Office, Cherppu dated 19.01.2022. The sale certificate was registered after physical possession of the secured asset was handed over to the petitioner. Petitioner also effected transfer of registry of the property and remitted the basic tax.

3. Petitioner alleges that on the morning of 22.1.2022, respondents 4 and 5, who were the borrowers, forcibly trespassed into the property, broke open the doors, threatened the inmates and took forcible possession of the property. The criminal acts were reported to the police, and a crime was registered as FIR No.73/2022 of the Cherppu Police Station. A complaint was also filed seeking protection for the life and property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, after the bank took over physical possession of the property and handed over the same, respondents 4 and 5 could not have trespassed into the property and forcibly taken possession. The action of respondents 4 and 5 questions the rule of law, pleaded the Petitioner. It is averred that after the borrowers were physically dispossessed, in accordance with the statutory provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short the Act), the said borrowers cannot re-enter the property and claim protection from dispossession, relying upon other legal principles. Thus, the petitioner seeks a direction to the police to take such steps to remove respondents 4 and 5 from the property and for grant of protection for his life and property. A further relief is also sought to direct the third respondent bank to invoke the provisions of section 14 of the Act to deliver possession of the secured asset sold to the petitioner.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent bank stating that the bank's obligation ended by handing over physical possession of the property to the petitioner immediately before the registration of the sale. It was pointed out that though S.A. No.175 of 2018 filed by the borrower is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the sale of the secured asset, which took place on 28.10.2021 remains unchallenged. According to the bank, C.M.P. No.4954 of 2016 was filed by them before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, for initiating proceedings under section 14 of the Act and thereafter, C.M.P. No.1280 of 2018 was filed, seeking permission to break open the door of the scheduled property. By order dated 28.02.2018, the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted the Advocate Commissioner to break open the lock and take possession of the building. Based on the aforesaid order, the Advocate Commissioner broke open the lock, took possession of the property and the building and filed a report before the court, which was recorded in the order dated 15.03.2018.

5. Consequent to taking possession of the secured asset, a security guard was also appointed. After the auction and registration of the sale certificate, the Bank terminated the security arrangement and withdrew the security guard on 21.01.2022. However, immediately after the security guard was withdrawn, respondents 4 and 5 trespassed into the property and occupied the secured asset illegally. The third respondent contended that this Court had intervened through Article 226 of th