- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39079 WP No. 8245 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 8245 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. J.P. JAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE J. JAGANNATH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, (RETIRED RAILWAY EMPLOYEE AND SENIOR CITIZEN) RESIDING AT NO.21, FRF4, 4TH FLOOR, R.K.GARDEN, 7TH MAIN, VENKATAPPA LAYOUT (NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT), BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE, HOSAKERE LAYOUT, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORISED OFFICER, OFFICE AT NO.342/1, SOUBHAGYA NILAYA, B.M.ROAD, BIDADI BRANCH, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 109. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.N.TULSIKUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39079 WP No. 8245 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED REPLY NOTICE DATED 27.05.2020 AND POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 09.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK U/S 13 AND 14 OF THE SECURITIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT READ WITH RULE 3 OF THE SECURITY INTEREST (ENFORCEMENT) RULES, TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE ONLY. A COPY AT ANNEXURE-A AND E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a reply dated 27.05.2020 issued by the respondent under Section 13(3) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of the Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act' for short) and the consequent possession notice, which was published in a daily newspaper dated 09.06.2020. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he and his wife are senior citizens and are residing at the address mentioned in the cause-title. They claim that they had entered into a lease - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39079 WP No. 8245 of 2020 agreement with one Sri.Porselvan on 27.08.2018 and had paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as security deposit. They claim that they were placed in possession of the leased premises and that they continued to occupy it. (ii) Thereafter, they came to know on 21.01.2020 that the respondent - bank had issued a no-objection to the owner to mortgage it for the purpose of security for the credit facility availed by him. They also came to know that the loan was not repaid and that the respondent - bank had taken symbolic possession of the property. (iii) The petitioner contends that he approached the respondent - bank and explained his position that he was occupying the secured asset as a tenant in terms of his two letters dated 17.03.2020 and 21.05.2020. The respondent - bank however, replied vide its letter dated 27.05.2020 feigning helplessness in the matter. Thereafter, the respondent - bank issued a notice under the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the reply issued by the respondent under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39079 WP No. 8245 of 2020 Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act as well as the possession notice published in the newspaper. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a tenant in lawful occupation of the premises in question even before the property was mortgaged by the owner. He therefore contends the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and the respondent cannot dispossess the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even if the petitioner is a tenant in the occupation of a secured asset and even if he is in possession prior to the mortgage in favour of the respondent, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (henceforth referred to as ‘DRT’ for short) as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 and South Indian Bank Limited and Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another - (2023) SCC Online SC 432. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39079 WP No. 8245 of 2020 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. The provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was amended, enabling any person including a tenant in occupation of a secured asset to seek redressal of his grievance before the DRT. The expression 'any person' used in Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is therefore of a wide import and takes within its fold not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any person who may be affected by any action that may be initiated either under Section 13(4) or under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This is also the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others. The said position of law is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in South Indian Bank Limited and Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Liberty is however reserved to the petitioner to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39079 WP No. 8245 of 2020 approach the Tribunal in accordance with law. If the petitioner files an appropriate petition before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall consider the same by deducting the time consumed in pursuing this petition while calculating the applicable limitation. 8. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1