Kovela Rupa v. P.Y. Kondala Rao & Anr.

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of certain house plots situated in Dhanapur, Bahudurguda Village, Saroornagar, Rangareddy District within the limits of LB Nagar Municipality, having purchased the 1st respondent herein under Sale Deeds dated 12-5-2004 and 12-3-2004. It is stated that since the 1st respondent failed to get the sale deeds registered, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.499 of 2007 and O.S.No.546 of 2007 in the Court of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at LB Nagar, which are pending and the interim orders directing the parties to maintain status quo are in operation. While so, the possession notice dated 28-6-2007 under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) issued by the 2nd respondent-Bank was affixed to the property in question calling upon the 1st respondent to hand over vacant possession of the plots to the 2nd respondent-Bank by 30-06-2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that since the matter is sub judice before the Court of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, the 2nd respondent is not entitled to proceed against the property in question particularly without notice to the petitioner.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. A perusal of the impugned possession notice dated 28-6-2007 shows that the vendor of the petitioner – 1st respondent herein – availed financial assistance the 2nd respondent-Bank by mortgaging the property in question as security. The impugned notice also shows that a sum of Rs.16,59,855/- is due from the 1st respondent and he failed to respond to the demand notice dated 23-2-2007 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the impugned notice was issued under Section 13 (4) of the Act calling upon the borrower/guarantors of the property to deliver physical possession on or before 30-6-2007, failing which the 2nd respondent would be compelled to take the physical possession of the property in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of the Act. Even assuming that the petitioner had purchased the property in question from the 1st respondent and that the suits for specific performance are pending in the Civil Court between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, in view of the overriding affect given to the provisions of Securitisation Act, the same cannot be a bar to enforce the security interest following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act for recovery of the amounts due from the 1st respondent.