IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH AND THE HON BLE MRS JUSTICE S SUJATHA Writ Petition No.45074/2014 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN M/S PRIYADARSHINI RESTAURANT (SPECIALITY VEGETARIAN RESTATURANT), SITUATED AT NO.262, S.C.ROAD, BANGALORE , REP. BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI A L RAKESH, S/O MR. A.N.LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.6 III MAIN ROAD, SRIPURAM, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE (BY SRI K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADV.)... PETITIONER AND 1. SRI RAMAKRISHNA HOTELS AND ENTERPRISES PVTL LTD. INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.262, SRI RAMAKRISHNA LODGE,

2 2 S C ROAD, BANGALORE , REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. D RAMACHANDRAPPA. 2. M/S. RAMAKRISHNA LODGE, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.262, SRI RAMAKRISHNA LODGE, S.C.ROAD, BANGALORE , REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. D. RAMACHANDRAPPA. 3. M/S LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD., BVK IYENGAR ROAD, BANGALORE REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER. 4. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. EDELWEISS HOUSE, OEE CST ROAD,KALINGA, MUMBAI , REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, AMIT AGGARWAL. 5. THE INCOME OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RANGE-3, UNITY BUILDING (ANNEXE), MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE (SRI M.K.VENKATARAMANA, ADV. FOR R3 SRI VIKRAM TRIVEDHI, ADV. FOR SMT ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADV. FOR R4 SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV. FOR R5 R1 AND R2 SERVED)... RESPONDENTS

3 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRAT, CHENNAI IN APPEAL NO.MA(SA)46/2013 VIDE ANNEX-H IN ORDER DTD AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PROCEEDINGS IN IR 811/2012 ON THE FILE OF DRT, BANGALORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, MANJUNATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing by consent of the parties, the petition is heard and disposed of on merits. 2. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of a portion of premises No.262, Subedar Chatram Road, Bangalore, contending that the petitioner is running a Vegetarian Restaurant in the premises known as Ramakrishna Lodge. The third respondent-bank has obtained the decree against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Later, the third respondent has assigned its

4 4 interest in favour of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, and has obtained an order to take possession of the entire property bearing No.262, which is inclusive of the Restaurant portion which is said to be the leased in favour of the writ petitioner. 3. The matter was heard at length. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and fourth respondent agree that the petitioner cannot object the fourth respondent to take possession of the remaining portion of premises No.262, Subedhar Chatram Road, Bangalore, where lodge is being run under the name and style of Ramakrishna Lodge, in terms of the order passed under the SURFAESI Act, but the question is that whether the petitioner can be dispossessed by the

5 5 fourth respondent or not. The fourth respondent is not admitting the tenancy rights of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner contends that he is a tenant of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and has been remitting the rent payable to the premises in a sum of `10,000/- p.m. to the Income Tax Department, pursuant to a notice issued by the fifth respondent-income Tax Department on account of the dues payable by the respondents 1 and 2 to the Department of Income Tax. 6. The apprehension of the fourth respondent is that, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner cannot resist the fourth respondent from taking possession of the remaining portion of the property excluding the Vegetarian Restaurant being run under the name and style of Priyadarshini Restaurant and he would also submit that action would be initiated

6 6 to take actual possession of the property in accordance with law, for which the petitioner cannot have any grievances. 7. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of without considering the case of the parties on merits, since the only question involved is whether the Restaurant run by the petitioner has to be allowed to be run by the petitioner or not till the possession is taken in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner shall not obstruct the fourth respondent to take possession of the remaining property situated in No.262, Subedhar Chatram Road, Bangalore which consists of lodging and other area. Liberty is granted to take as per Annexure K4 excluding the premises Restaurant being run by the petitioner.

7 7 However, the fourth respondent shall not obstruct the use of the premises by the petitioner to run the Vegetarian Restaurant till the petitioner is dispossessed, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JT/-