Hotel Amuthas (Partnership v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.7.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.35222 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 Hotel Amuthas (Partnership Firm) Rep. by its Partner Mr.V.Bahavanth No.3, 4, K.R.G. Nagar 7th Extension Street Ganapathy Coimbatore-641 001.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore
2. The Tahsildar Coimbatore South Coimbatore
3. Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its Chief Manager Oppanakara Street Coimbatore-641 002.
4. M/s.Nithyakumar & Co.
Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.C.Rajagopal No.155 Ponnurangam Road R.S.Puram Coimbatore-641 002.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceeding of the 1st respondent Ref. No.10865/ 2014/E3 dated 9.10.2015, quash the same and direct the respondents to hand over the possession of the premises in Door No.511 to 518 and Part Door No.516, 516/1 Oppanakkara Street Coimbatore to the petitioner to continue the ongoing business.
For petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar For RR1 and 2 : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.F.B.Benjamin George
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-Bank.
2. It appears that the petitioner, being a tenant, is before this court, challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that more than 15 lakhs is invested by them in the property in question and they are functioning in the said premises for the past 8 years and therefore, the eviction cannot be ordered without due process.
3. The due process of law, even according to the judgment of the Apex Court is that the tenant should be evicted only under due process. Such being the case, what is contemplated under the provisions of the Rent Control Act is that a notice of termination be issued and thereafter, proceedings has to be initiated by the Rent Controller or the Civil Court as the case may be and in the summary proceedings, it would be decided as to whether the tenant could be continued or not on the basis of the available materials on record and not beyond that. In the circumstances, normally, when the properties are brought for auction, the property would be sold by subjecting it to auction and the auction purchaser would have every right to step into the shoes of the bank.
4. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have right to proceed against the auction proceedings even after the purchase of the property by the auction purchaser, they being tenants, cannot be entertained. However, it is made clear that the petitioner can participate in the auction and if the petitioner becomes the highest bidder, then they will be entitled to the property and if anybody else becomes the highest bidder, then the petitioner is bound to vacate and handover the property. Further, the petitioner is said to have not removed their belongings as the premises is kept under lock and seal. Therefore, the premises shall be kept de-sealed for three days, on production of a copy of this
order, and the petitioner has to vacate and hand over the premises after removing the belongings kept there.
5. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssk.
To
1. The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore
2. The Tahsildar Coimbatore South Coimbatore
3. The Chief Manager Indian Overseas Bank Oppanakara Street Coimbatore-641 002.
+2cc's to Mr.V.Manohar, Advocate, S.R.Nos.39180 & 39047 W.P.No.35222 of 2015 AK(CO) CA(18/08/2016)