- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1447 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SRI SHAIKH SADIQ @ SADIKH PASHA, C/O ABDUL LATHIFF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 72, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, K.M. COLONY, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMAR SHARIFF., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITY SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 92, 3RD FLOOR, SREE VENKATESHWARA TOWERS, SOUTH END ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, OPP. SURANA COLLEGE, BENGALURU 560 011. ALSO HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NOS. 1201, 1202, 1203, 12TH FLOOR, ANSAL BHAWAN, 16, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 2. NZ STEEL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.3/1, 2ND CROSS, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR, NR ROAD, BENGALURU 560002 REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013 3. SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA, S/O SRI MOHAMMED SHAFI ULLA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, C/O 72, 2ND CROSS, K.M COLONY, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU 560011. 4. SMT SADIQA TARANNUM, W/O SRI MOHAMMED ZAHEER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, C/O 72, 2ND CROSS, K.M COLONY, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU 560011. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO : A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION RESTRAINING RESPONDENT 1, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM DISPOSSESSING THE PETITIONER FROM THE GROUND FLOOR PORTION OF MUNICIPAL NO. 72, 2ND CROSS, K.M. COLONY, SIDDAPURA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 011, OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHOUT FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS UNDER THE KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999, CONSIDERING THE ANNEXURE-D RESPECTIVELY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.12.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND VACATION CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, IN O.S. NO. 9120/2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS IT DECLINES TO GRANT AD- INTERIM PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER, AS BEING ARBITRARY, MECHANICAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC; THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs : “ a) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondent No.1, its officers, agents and representatives from dispossessing the petitioner from the ground floor portion of Municipal No.72, 2nd Cross, K.M. Colony, Siddapura, Jayanagar 1st Block, Bengaluru 560011, otherwise than in accordance with law and without following due process under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 considering the annexure-d respectively. b) set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned II Addl. City civil and Vacation City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No.9120 of 2025, vide Annexure-A insofar as it declines to grant ad- interim protection to the petitioner, as being arbitrary, mechanical and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and etc; 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this petition, are as follows: 3. The petitioner herein is the bona fide tenant of the ground floor in Municipal No. 72, 2nd cross, K. M. Colony, Siddapura, Jayanagar, 1st Block, Bengaluru. He has been residing there for more than 5 years initially under the previous owners and thereafter under respondents Nos.3 and 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4 purchased the aforesaid property vide registered sale deed dated 24.06.2022. Thereafter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 the petitioners tenancy was recorded by lease cum rental agreement dated 12.01.2024 for a period 15.01.2024 to 15.01.2026 with total deposit of Rs.6,50,000/- and monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. The petitioner has no knowledge of any mortgage or SARFAESI proceedings regarding the said property till the officials of Respondent No.1 visited him. Respondent No.1 officials came to the property and wrote on wall that the property is mortgaged, pasted a possession notice dated 20.11.2025 and threatened the petitioner with forceful eviction. 4. Again the respondent officials threatened the petitioners to return with the police for evicting the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.9120 of 2025 before the Vacation City Civil and Session’s Court, Bangalore, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court has not granted the ad interim ex parte injunction. However, it issued an emergent notice on the said interim application vide - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 order dated 24.12.2025. It is contended that the petitioner is a protected tenant under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. Hence, this petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners tenancy is protected under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act. He submits that the tenants protected under the rent control statutes cannot be dispossessed under the SARFAESI proceedings. He submits that the remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal is structured only for the borrowers. The petitioner is left remediless. he submits that the action of respondent No.1 in taking the recovery steps is arbitrary and is against the prescribed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 procedure. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the petition. 7. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. It is undisputed that, the petitioner is the tenant under respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 obtained the loan from Respondent No.1 institution. A default was committed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in repayment of the loan amount. Respondent No.1 initiated the recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Act. A possession notice dated 20.11.2025 came to be issued. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.9120 of 2025 before the Vacation City Civil and Session’s Court, Bangalore, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. However, the trial court has not granted the ad interim ex parte injunction, but issued emergent notice vide Order dated 24.12.2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 9. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the borrowers from respondent No.1. According to Section 17 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the measures taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Act— including borrowers, mortgagors, or third parties can file an application under Section 17 of the Act to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413, held in paragraph No.17 as follows: “17. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression `any person' used in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner is a person affected by the action taken under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner ought to have filed an application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No.9120 of 2025 seeking the relief of permanent - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9774 WP No. 1447 of 2026 injunction. The petitioner would have pursued the said suit in agitating his grievance or would have filed securitization application. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in view of alternate remedy available to the petitioner. The petitioner without exhausting the equal efficacious remedy, has filed this petition. 12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (I) The writ petition is dismissed. (II) In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35