IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED W.P.No.626 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.759 of 2026 P.A.Footwear Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.S.K.Sivavilvaselvan, S/o.Mr.S.V.Kumaraguruparaswamy, No.160, SKLS Estate, GNT Road, Sembulivaram, Sholavaram, Chennai – 67. ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Authorized Officer, M/s.LIC Housing Finance Limited, Chennai Back Office, Floor No.30/1A, Abdul Razak Street, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

2. E.Mohan ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the first respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the scheduled mentioned properties, pending disposal of M.A.Nos.408 & 409 of 2025 in S.A.No.31 of 2024 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai – 6.

For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan For Respondents : Mr.R.Imayavaramban for M/s.S.Ramalingam & Associates for R1

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

The present petitioner is a lessee in respect of the property in question for which possession has already been taken by the Bank under SARFAESI proceedings. However, by virtue of the order that has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in S.A.No.31 of 2024 on 31.01.2024, the present petitioner had been permitted to stay as lessee in the said premises by paying the rent or damages at the rate of Rs.15,00,000/- per month.

2. Time granted by the Tribunal by order dated 31.01.2024 upto

15.01.2026 just has been expired. Before the expiry of the said period, the present petitioner has filed two miscellaneous applications in M.A.Nos.408 & 409 of 2025 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which has been adjourned to 10.02.2026 for further hearing. Since the adjournment has been made beyond the deadline i.e., on 15.01.2026, apprehending the imminent threat of dispossession of the present petitioner, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforestated prayer.

3. Heard Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Imayavaramban, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. In view of the order that is going to be passed in the writ petition, notice to the second respondent is dispensed with.

4. Since SARFAESI proceedings have already been initiated where possession notice has been issued, at that time only since the petitioner being the Shoe Manufacturing Company has been occupying the premises as lessee at whose instance the Tribunal passed orders on 31.01.2024 permitting the petitioner to stay at the premises till 15.01.2026 at the expectation within which he would find out an alternative place and relocate his business by vacating the said premises.

5. However, that is not materialized even till today i.e., beyond

15.01.2026 and in the meanwhile, he moved two miscellaneous applications seeking further extension till July 2026.

6. In this context, when this matter came up for hearing on 08.01.2026, we passed the following order:

“Despite the order having been passed by the Tribunal in S.A.No.31 of 2024 dated 31.01.2024, by which a clear direction and liberty having been given to the first respondent bank / financial institution to proceed under the SARFAESI Act, for the past two years nothing has been moved from the financial institution towards bringing the property for public auction and for sale.

2. Merely because possessory right as a tenant had been given to the present writ petitioner upto 15.01.2026 by the said order dated 31.01.2024, that would not ipso-facto give rise to any prohibitory order against the first respondent / financial institution from proceeding further under the SARFAESI Act.

3. In this context, we are wondering to note as to why for the past two years the first respondent has not initiated any action to bri