The court directed landlords to unlock premises to allow a tenant to sell movable assets to satisfy debts owed to the bank and landlords, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the process.

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The only prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 (landlords of the petitioner) to act upon the representation made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/SBI to sell the petitioner’s movable properties.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No.1/SBI. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 (landlords of the petitioner) are not represented despite service of notice. The proof of service is on record.

3. The Court is informed that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.6 crores from the respondent No.1-Bank to establish a diagnostics business on the premises of the respondent Nos.2 and 3/landlords. The business however did not take off. Hence, the account of the petitioner became NPA as on September, 2023. In the meantime, the petitioner also defaulted payment of rents to the respondent Nos.2 and 3/landlords. The landlords filed a suit in O.S.No.807 of 2023 in the Ranga Reddy Courts which is pending as on date. The landlords also locked the premises of the petitioner’s firm consisting of the petitioner’s movable properties, on 02.05.2022, followed by the respondent No.1/Bank and partners putting the second and third lock on the premises, respectively.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Bank denies the fact that the Bank had put second lock on the rented premises. Counsel appearing for the Bank further submitted that the recent proposal made by the petitioner on 22.09.2025 for OTS (One time settlement) was refused by the respondent No.1/Bank. Hence, as on date, the petitioner’s premises remained locked by the respondent Nos.2 and 3/landlords.

5. The petitioner is unable to access his moveable properties and sell them for part-satisfaction of the loan taken from the Bank or towards the arrears of rent due to the landlords.

6. We were unable to hear the stand of the respondent Nos.2 and 3/landlords since they are not represented.

7. Hence, we deem it fit to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3/landlords to open the locks of the petitioner’s firm so that the petitioner can remove the movable properties in the presence of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and a representative of the respondent No.1/Bank. The respondents i.e., the respondent No.1-Bank and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be at liberty to sell the movable properties to the satisfaction of their respective claims against the petitioner.

8. Mr. B.Nrupen Guptha, Advocate (Cell No.8885127046), is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner to be present during the opening of the locks. The directions passed by us with regard to the opening of the premises by unlocking the same shall be done on 08.08.2026 at 10:30 AM. The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards his fees out of the sale proceeds of the petitioner’s assets and movable properties. The mode of allocation of the sale proceeds shall be decided by the respondent No.1/Bank and the respondent Nos.2 and 3/landlords.

9. As stated above, the premises shall be unlocked in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner, representative of the respondent No.1 Bank and the representative of the petitioner. Notice of the same shall be given to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 08.08.2026 at 9.00 AM. The Advocate Commissioner shall be at liberty to seek Police aid, if necessary.

10. W.P.No.2276 of 2026, along with a