Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Mariyam Rangwala and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Bombay. They had purchased flat No.202 in New Jamali Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai, in an auction sale conducted by respondent No.3, State Bank of India (SBI), in 2017. They paid the bid amount and consideration and had been residing in the flat for eight years. On 20.08.2025, they were forcibly evicted from the flat at the behest of respondent No.2, Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., without any legal proceedings or court order. The petitioners sought restoration of possession and compensation. The court considered whether the forcible eviction was illegal and whether writ jurisdiction could be invoked. The petitioners argued that they were lawful owners and that the bank's action was high-handed. The respondents contended that the flat was mortgaged to them and that they had a right to take possession. The court held that the bank's action was illegal and violative of Article 21 and Article 300A of the Constitution. The court directed the respondents to restore possession to the petitioners within two weeks and also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the illegal eviction.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Illegal Dispossession - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners, auction purchasers of a flat, were forcibly evicted by respondent bank without any legal proceedings or court order - Held that such high-handed action by a bank, a State instrumentality, cannot be countenanced and writ court can grant relief against illegal dispossession (Paras 1-10). B) Property Law - Auction Sale - Rights of Auction Purchaser - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 55 - Petitioners purchased flat in 2017 auction by SBI and were in peaceful possession for eight years - Held that auction purchaser acquires valid title and cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law (Paras 2-5). C) Banking Law - Secured Creditor - Possession without Due Process - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), Sections 13(4), 14 - Respondent bank took possession without any order under Section 14 or any court order - Held that bank cannot take law into its own hands and must follow statutory procedure (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the forcible eviction of the petitioners from a flat purchased in an auction sale by SBI, at the behest of respondent No.2 bank, without following due process of law, is illegal and violative of their fundamental rights, and whether this Court can grant relief in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.2 to restore possession of the flat to the petitioners within two weeks. The court also awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioners for the illegal eviction, to be paid by respondent No.2.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- illegal dispossession
- auction sale
- bank as secured creditor
- possession without due process
- fundamental rights under Article 21
- right to property under Article 300A
- remedy under Article 226
