ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

This Writ Petition is filed challenging a sale notice, dated 19.05.2022 issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, proposing to sell the secured asset on 16.06.2022.

2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court granted stay of further proceedings, pursuant to the sale notice on condition that the petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh only) on or before

15.06.2022.

3. It is admitted before this Court that the said condition is complied with. However, unfortunately, it is also a fact that the respondent Bank has secured possession of the asset on 19.05.2022.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners came forward with an offer that the petitioners may be permitted to pay a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only), so that, the Bank may hand over the possession of the secured asset. It is seen from the sale notice that the upset price fixed for the secured asset is Rs.1,43,15,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Three Lakh and Fifteen Thousand only). It is admitted that the liability as on date of sale notice is around Rs.64 lakhs and it is reduced by Rs.30 lakhs. It is further represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the secured asset was leased out for commercial purpose and the petitioners are earning a reasonable income by way of rent. Since by virtue of the Bank taking possession, it is represented that the petitioners are deprived of the legitimate income from the secured asset.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has produced before this Court a list of dates and events from 28.09.2015 to till date. The events of course reveal the fact that the petitioners were unable to comply with several conditional orders passed by the this Court and the Tribunal earlier. In view of the pendency of the appeal under SARFAESI Act pending before the Tribunal, this Court has disposed of the earlier writ petitions preserving the right of the petitioners to agitate his right before the Tribunal.

6. It is represented by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that the Writ Petition challenging the order of of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, was dismissed on merits. Similarly, the other writ petitions were dismissed not only on the ground that the petitioners' appeal before the DRT is pending, but also on merits by describing the petitioners as chronic defaulters.

7. Be that as it may, this Court is unable to reject the proposal of the petitioners having regard to the following factors:

a) The petitioners have paid substantial amount and reduced the liability substantially. The amount due as on date is less than Rs.35 lakhs whereas the value of secured asset even according to the Bank is more than Rs.1.4 crores. (b)The secured asset is a house building bearing Door No.70 in 3rd street of S.S.Colony, Madurai. The secured asset was leased out to two tenants, who were carrying on business. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were residing in the third floor and the first and the second floors were given on lease to the tenants for commercial purpose. It is also stated by the petitioners that a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), per month was received by the petitioners for first floor portion and a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) is fixed as rent for the second floor. In view of the fact that the possession had been secured by the Bank. The petitioners are not only deprived of the rent, but also had been driven out from the residential house.

(c)The Bank through has secured the physical possession of the property and is unable to use the same for any purpose.

(d)The Bank is not going to maintain the building by carrying out regular maintenance and this may lead to show deterioration of value of building.

(e) The petitioner or the Bank has to pa