- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32307 WP No. 22606 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22606 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. MOHAMMAD MUKTHAR T A SON OF LATE ABDUL BASHEER T.A, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO. 75, GROUND FLOOR, 29TH MAIN ANUGRAHA LAYOUT BTM 2ND STAGE PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N MAHALINGA BHAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. AUTHORISED OFFICER THE BANK OF INDIA NO. 11, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU ZONE, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SMT. SEEMA KUMARI. 2. SMT. REGILA IYYA PILLAI D/O. SRI IYYA PILLAI AGED 44 YEARS R/AT NO. 172/E1, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32307 WP No. 22606 of 2025 RAKINDO APARTMENT, KOVAIPUR, COIMBATORE -641042. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A.ISSUE WRIT IN MANDAMUS DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 BANK NOT TO DISTURB THE POSSESSION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BASED ON PER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IX ACMM AT BENGALURU, IN CRI MISE NO 10531/2024 DATED 29-04-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; (B) TO ORDER FOR REFUND OF THE LEASE AMOUNT PAID BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 14,00,000/- (RUPEES FOURTEEN LAKH ONLY) IN THE EVENT OF TAKING OVER POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AT ANNEXURE A. LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2022; C). ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTION TO THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE TO GIVE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32307 WP No. 22606 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 29.04.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10531/2024 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City [for short, 'the Magistrate’s Court'] and these proceedings are at the instance of the first respondent under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short, 'SARFAESI Act']. The Magistrate's Court has allowed the first respondent's application to take possession of the subject property [a residential apartment] with the assistance of a Court Commissioner. 2. Sri N Mahalinga Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after the impugned order, the first respondent has locked one of the entrance to the apartment and there is every possibility of the petitioner being locked out entirely, and on merits, the learned counsel submits thus: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32307 WP No. 22606 of 2025 [a] though the property was mortgaged by the second respondent [the owner] with the first respondent, the petitioner is inducted into the apartment under the registered Lease Agreement dated 17.10.2022; [b] the petitioner has bona fide paid a substantial amount as refundable security deposit; [c] that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 3. These submissions are considered for disposal of this petition without issuance of notice to the respondents. The petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 17[4A] of the SARFAESI Act, and all aspects have to be examined in such proceedings, including whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the apartment subject to refund. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32307 WP No. 22606 of 2025 4. However, there are no circumstances that justify a limited interdiction in the present proceedings because the petitioner has the benefit of a registered lease deed executed by the second respondent way back in the year 2022 and that there is an imminent threat of dispossession. This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed for a reasonable time and all actions must be deferred, with opportunity to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. Hence the following: ORDER [A] The petition stands disposed of calling upon the first respondent to defer any precipitous action including dispossession of the petitioner from the subject property for a period of four [4] weeks from today with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32307 WP No. 22606 of 2025 [B] This Court also observes that if the petitioner avails alternative remedy, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall consider the question of protection to the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings independent of the arrangement that is made herein. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-