Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Srinagar vs 5. Tehsildar on 29 July, 2026
Sr. No. 01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP (C) No. 3167/2023
Date of pronouncement: 29.07.2026
Date of uploading: 29.07.2026
1. Mohammad Ishaq Pampori (Age 73 years)
S/o Haji Abdul Gani
2. Mrs. Fahmida (Age 65 years)
W/o Mohammad Ishaq Pampori
3. Danish Hussain Pampori (Age 37 years)
S/o Mohammad Ishaq Pampori
Residents of Umer Colony, Lal Bazar,
Srinagar .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. M.M. Dar, Advocate
v/s
1. Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Ltd., through its
Chairman, Corporate Headquarters, M.A.
Road, Srinagar, Kashmir.
2. Authorized Officer, Jammu and Kashmir
Bank Ltd., Zonal Office, M.A. Road, Srinagar
Kashmir.
3. Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank, Branch
University Campus, Hazratbal, Srinagar.
4. Zonal Head Estates & Central Srinagar,
Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Srinagar.
5. Tehsildar, Tehsil North, Srinagar .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Shafqat Nazir, Advocate
Ms. Hina Baqal, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) (Through virtual mode)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a
writ of certiorari quashing notice dated 06.01.2023 issued by the
2 WP (C) No. 3167/2023
respondent-Bank under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
[“the Act”] read with Rule 8(1) of the Security (Enforcement)
Interest Rules, 2002 [“the Rules”]. The petitioners also seek a
mandamus to the respondent-Bank not to give effect to the impugned
notice or dispossess the petitioners from the commercial cum
residential building constructed upon land measuring 01 kanal and
05 marlas falling under khasra no. 430, khewat no. 321 situated at
Moza Habbak Tehsil North District, Srinagar [“the mortgaged
property”].
2. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded by the petitioners in this petition are
that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of two storeyed
commercial structure space in the multi-storeyed building popularly
known as Karra Building situated at M.A. Road, Lal Chowk,
Srinagar [“the leased property”].
3. It is submitted that the respondent-Bank entered into a lease
agreement for taking on rent the leased property known by the name
of Kara Building on 09.08.2008 on the terms and conditions
enumerated in the rent agreement executed on the same day.
4. As per Clause 1 of the lease agreement, the leased premises were to
remain on rent with the Bank for a period of fifteen years w.e.f.
01.08.2008 with an option to the tenant to renew the same for any
further period. The Clause 4 of the rent agreement, however,
provided that the tenant-Bank shall have an option to terminate the
tenancy of the leased premises by giving the landlord (the petitioner
herein) a prior notice of one month in writing expressing therein their
3 WP (C) No. 3167/2023
intention to do so or on payment of one month‟s rent in lieu thereof.
This was a different arrangement between the petitioners and the
respondent-Bank, though, the rental payable to the petitioners on
account of leased premises was being adjusted by the Bank towards
loan taken by the petitioners against the mortgaged property. It is not
disputed by the petitioners that there was a default in repayment of
the loan amount which was granted to the petitioners to the tune of
Rs. 48.00 Lakhs against the mortgaged property kept as collateral
security. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the Bank
having found that the loan account of the petitioners had turned NPA
due to failure of the petitioners to adhere to the repayment schedule,
had to initiate proceedings under SARFAESI Act. A notice under
Section 13 (2), followed by a notice under Section 13 (4) of the
SARFAESI Act of 2002 were issued and the mortgaged property was
taken possession of.
5. The petitioners submit that the Bank, acting in breach of the
commitment made to the petitioners, terminated the lease
prematurely on 14.02.2020, thus, depriving them the means to repay
the loan. It is submitted that against the apprehended termination of
the tenancy prematurely by the Bank, the petitioners approached the
Civil Court wherein the Civil Court initially granted an order of
status quo which was later on vacated. The appeal also failed and
order of trial Court was not interfered with by the appellate Court on
the ground that having regard to the nature of main relief claimed,
the relief prayed for turned infructuous.
4 WP (C) No. 3167/2023
6. The short grievance projected by the petitioners before us is that till
the issue, with regard to legal termination of the lease qua the leased
property which is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, is
determined, the petitioners should not be harassed for repayment of
the loan. This is the sum and substance of the grievance projected by
the petitioners.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, we see no nexus or direct relation between the two
transactions. Lease agreement qua the leased property is a distinct
and independent contract entered into between the petitioners and the
respondent-Bank. We could not find out any clause in the lease
agreement which links the payment of rental with the loan amount
borrowed by the petitioners against different security, i.e., mortgaged
property. There may have been arrangement with the Bank for the
purpose of appropriation of the rental towards the loan account, but
that alone cannot make the lease agreement, executed between the
petitioners and the Bank, a part of a loan documents. The petitioners
may have a grievance against the Bank for premature termination of
the lease agreement and such grievance, as noted above, is already a
subject matter of adjudication before the Civil Court.
8. We, therefore, deem it appropriate not to comment on the issue on
merits lest it may prejudice the rights of the parties pending
determination in the Civil Court. Suffice it to say, that loan
transaction is quite different and completely independent of the lease
agreement. The loan has been secured by the Bank against the
5 WP (C) No. 3167/2023
„mortgaged property‟ owned by the petitioners. In case of default in
making the payment and the loan account having turned NPA, the
Bank is well within its rights to proceed under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act. This is exactly what has been done by the
respondent-Bank.
9. The defence put forth by the petitioners that the respondent-Bank is
liable to retain the possession of the leased property for up to 2023 or
2028, as is reflected in the lease agreement, is not tenable for the
reasons we have explained above. There is no other ground urged by
Mr. M.M. Dar, Advocate which would convincingly demonstrate
that the notice issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13 (4) of
the SARFAESI Act and the consequent taking over the possession of
the lease property is vitiated in law in any manner.
10. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this petition and the same
is, accordingly, dismissed. We make it clear that nothing said by us
in this order shall prejudice the rights of the parties which are subject
matter of adjudication before the Civil Court.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice (A)
JAMMU
29.07.2026
Manik
Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No.
