The court underscored the obligation of financial institutions to consider objections under the SARFAESI Act and affirmed the availability of statutory remedies for aggrieved parties.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 notice issued by the respondents under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), on the ground that the classification of the loan account as a 'non performing asset', is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner inter alia seeks direction against the respondents to consider the request made for increase in the rate of rent payable to the petitioner, from 24.2.2010 onwards till surrender of the premises, with respect to the building of the petitioner which is at present occupied by the respondents.

2. It is noticed that, against Ext.P9 demand made under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply, as evidenced from Ext.P10. Going by provisions contained under section 13(3A), it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider objections if any raised against the demand under section 13(2). It is now submitted that, after considering Ext.P10, the respondents have taken a decision and intimated the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision, it is left open to him to invoke remedy as provided under section 17(1), when the respondents proceed with further steps.

3. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no interference of this Court is called for at this stage, in view of the effective statutory remedy available.

4. With respect to request for enhancement of the rate of rent, it is noticed that the issue could not be agitated in this writ petition. The rights and liabilities arising out of the rental arrangement, is a matter need be adjudicated by the appropriate court. It is submitted that the petitioner had already approached the Rent Control Court seeking appropriate reliefs. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the dispute in this regard.

5. However, when the writ petition came up for consideration on 12.4.2011, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent Bank that they are intending to vacate the premises in question, within a short period. On that premise, further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was directed to be kept in abeyance till 31.5.2011.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is taking all earnest steps to pay off the liability within a short period and on that premise seek indulgence of this Court in restraining further coercive steps for a period of 3 months. It is stated that the rent payable to the petitioner by the respondents with respect to the premises occupied, is being adjusted against amounts due under the loan accounts. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in restraining further coercive steps for a reasonable period.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps under the SARFAESI Act, for a period of 3 months from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to pay off the arrears under the loan accounts.

8. It is made clear that the challenges raised against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act as well as the dispute pertaining to enhancement of the rate of rent is left open for agitation. Rights if any available to the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy with respect to those matters are left open.

9. It is made clear that in case the respondent Bank vacate the premises, it will be left open to the petitioner to let out the premises to any other tenant with consent of the respondent Bank, for which the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the respondents.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/