A registered lease without bank permission is illegal, and unregistered sale agreements do not confer property rights.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a tenant under the 5^th respondent.

Ext. P.1 is a copy of the registered lease deed executed between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. The lease covers 4.05 ares of land in Sy No.1122/1 of Kodassery Village in Challakudy Taluk of Thrissur District. The 5^th respondent had availed several credit facilities from the 2^nd respondent bank after mortgaging certain items of property belonging to him, including the extent of property leased to the petitioner. On default being committed, the 2^nd respondent bank initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1969 Act) and obtained four separate awards determining the liability of the 5^th respondent. In execution proceedings initiated by the 2^nd respondent bank, the mortgaged properties, including the extent of property leased to the petitioner, were brought to sale by the 3rd respondent (Sale Officer).

2. The petitioner filed Exts. P4, P5, P6, and P7 claim petitions before the 3^rd respondent, claiming inter alia that he had entered into a registered lease agreement with the 5^th respondent for a portion of one of the items of property that had been mortgaged by the 5^th respondent. According to the petitioner, he was conducting a workshop in the leased premises. The petitioner also contends that he had executed Ext. P.2 agreement dated 23.12.2019 with the 5^th respondent, agreeing to purchase an extent of 7.04 ares of land, which includes the land leased out to the petitioner. While the lease agreement is registered, the agreement for sale under which the petitioner had allegedly agreed to purchase the property has not been registered. The petitioner is before this court claiming that he had spent huge amounts of money for improving the property for the purpose of conducting business there, and that he had also advanced certain amounts to the 5^th respondent in terms of the agreement entered into with the 5^th respondent for the purchase of the property. It is his case that there are other items of property which have been mortgaged to the 2^nd respondent bank, and the sale of those properties will be sufficient to recover the amount due to the 2^nd respondent bank. It is the case of the petitioner that since he is holding only a portion of the mortgaged property under a registered lease and since he has entered into an agreement for the purchase of that property, the sale officer cannot proceed to auction the extent of property now in the possession of the petitioner. It is contended that, by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 85 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules,1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1969 Rules), only such portion of the property that is required to satisfy the amount due to the 2^nd respondent can be sold. It is submitted that there is a clear violation of the provisions of Rule 85 of the 1969 Rules, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent bank submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to approach this court seeking the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent and his wife had availed credit facilities from the 2^nd respondent bank and that the liability as on 09.08.2024 is Rs.79,24,943/-. It is submitted that the 5^th respondent had mortgaged 27.92 Ares of property in Sy No.1122/1 of Kodassery Village, 2.02 Ares in Sy. No.1158/9 of Kodassery Village and 8.09 Ares of land in Sy. No.44/2 of Kodassery Village to secure the repayment of the liability to the 2^nd respondent bank. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner that sale of the properties in Sy. No.1158/9 and 44/2 will be sufficient to clear the liability to the 2^nd respondent ba