9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n their individual capacity joined the other petitioners though, they were shown representing Medexpress (Clinics & Diagnostics) and Movie Rainbow Web Services India (Private) Limited in the respective rental agreements. We are of the considered view that since the rental agreements were unregistered, they cannot be construed as valid, and, therefore, no obligation was cast on the authorized officer to move the learned CMM requesting to issue notice to the petitioners herein. Hence, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the learned CMM do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit. - WRIT PETITION NO. 16043 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2015 - R. SUBHASH REDDY AND A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, JJ. For The Petitoiner : Raja Reddy Koneti For The Respondent : Subrahmanyam Kurella ORDER A. Shankar Narayana, J. - The petitioners herein filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 Indian Overseas Bank, Adarshnagar Branch, Hyderabad, in proceeding to evict them under the orders passed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners is that the Bank has no right to evict them as it deliberately suppressed the fact of their possession as tenants. Claiming that they have no other effective alternative remedy, as no right is provided for the action initiated under Section 14 of the Act, they approached this Court for the aforesaid relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Bank resisted the request of the petitioners stating that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the instant action as they are third parties to the proceedings. According to the Bank, the remedy for the petitioners is to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). It is also stated that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge passed by the learned CMM as the interest of the petitioners was sufficiently protected by ordering fifteen (15) days prior notice. It is also pleaded that the instant writ petition is filed in collusion with the principal borrower viz., M. Venkatesh, Managing Director of M/s. TCI Constructions Limited, which is petitioner No.5 herein, but, got described that it was represented by its Director, Smt. M. Anuradha, wife ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Venkatesh, would prove that the instant writ petition is an out come of collusion between them. It is his submission that the petitioners have no locus standi as they are third parties to the proceedings. Further, the learned counsel would submit that an effective alternative remedy is available under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, and, therefore, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel has placed reliance on (an unreported) decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Aumento Pallinos (P.) Ltd. v. Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India dated 22-07-2014, in support of his stand that the lease deeds filed by the petitioners herein, since unregistered and improperly stamped, the leases cannot be construed as valid and, therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition based on such lease deeds. 9. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed in Criminal M.P. Nos.1072, 1073 and 1074 of 2015 are liable to be set aside? POINT: 10. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel in Aumento Pallinos (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) this Court while deciding the question whether the petitioner there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the lessees entitling them for notice under Section 14 of the Act. Though, at one place in the affidavit averments in the instant writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner No.4 has taken the premises of a portion about six (6) months prior to filing of the writ petition, no document is forthcoming. But, the said rental agreement is not filed into Court to prove the said fact. In Harshad Govardhan Sondager's case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court, in the context of lessee resisting the attempt of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured property, observed that the authorized officer cannot evict the lessee perforce, but has to file a petition before the CMM or District Magistrate (DM) under Section 14 of the Act and state in the affidavit accompanying the application, the name and address of the person claiming to be lessee; on which, the CMM or the DM would have to give a notice, opportunity of hearing to the person claiming to be the lessee as well as the secured creditor, consistent with the principles of natural justice and then take a decision. It is also held by the Honble Supreme Court that if the CMM or the DM is satisfied that there is a valid lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be kept in his own custody or in the custody of any person authorised or appointed by him, who shall take as much care of the property in his custody as an owner of ordinary prudence would, under the similar circumstances, take of such property. 28. A reading of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 would show that the possession notice will have to be affixed on the outer door or at the conspicuous place of the property and also published, as soon as possible but in any case not later than seven days from the date of taking possession, in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised officer. At this stage, the lessee of an immovable property will have notice of the secured creditor making efforts to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower. When, therefore, a lessee becomes aware of the possession being taken by the secured creditor, in respect of the secured asset in respect of which he is the lessee, from the possession notice which is delivered, affixed or published in Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommencement of leases thereunder. We would like to observe that M/s. ITCS International Private Limited, said to be the lessee under the rental agreement, dated 14-03-2014, Medexpress (Clinics Diagnostics), said to be the lessee under the rental agreement, dated 06-02-2013, and Movie Rainbow Web Services India (Private) Limited, said to be the lessee under the rental agreement, dated 03-09-2014, are not the petitioners herein. The petitioner Nos.2 and 4 in their individual capacity joined the other petitioners though, they were shown representing Medexpress (Clinics Diagnostics) and Movie Rainbow Web Services India (Private) Limited in the respective rental agreements. We are of the considered view that since the rental agreements were unregistered, they cannot be construed as valid, and, therefore, no obligation was cast on the authorized officer to move the learned CMM requesting to issue notice to the petitioners herein. Hence, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders passed by the learned CMM do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
