Leasehold security and public premises eviction can coexist; a mere show cause notice is usually not fit for writ challenge.

Where only leasehold rights are mortgaged, enforcement under the SARFAESI Act does not displace the public authority's separate power under the Public Premises Act to terminate the lease and act against unauthorized occupation. The two statutes operate in different fields: SARFAESI addresses recovery of secured debt, while the Public Premises Act governs eviction from public premises and incidental dues. The validity of lease termination and unauthorized occupation is to be examined under the Public Premises Act, not by the DRT under SARFAESI. A writ challenge to a mere show cause notice is ordinarily premature where no final adverse order has been passed; the notices were therefore not amenable to interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 overrides the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 so as to deprive the Estate Officer of jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner, and (ii) whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notices was premature and not maintainable.

Issue (i): whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 overrides the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 so as to deprive the Estate Officer of jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner.

Analysis: The disputed security extended only to the leasehold interest of the lessee and not to the owner's title or reversionary rights. The two enactments were held to operate in different fields: the SARFAESI Act provides a mechanism for recovery of secured debt, while the Public Premises Act provides a mechanism for eviction from public premises and recovery of incidental dues. The owner's contractual and statutory right to terminate the lease upon breach was held to remain unaffected by the creation or enforcement of the security interest. The Court further held that the question whether the lease was validly terminated and whether the occupation had become unauthorized could be adjudicated only under the Public Premises Act and not by the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Conclusion: The SARFAESI Act does not override the Public Premises Act in the facts of the case, and the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition challenging the show cause notices was premature and not maintainable.

Analysis: A show cause notice does not by itself determine rights or inflict civil consequences unless it is shown to be wholly without jurisdiction. The impugned notices merely called upon the noticees to explain why eviction should not follow, and no final adverse order had yet been passed. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised to quash a mere show cause notice, particularly where the competent authority is still to consider the reply and decide the matter on merits.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notices was premature and not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both jurisdictional and maintainability grounds, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where only leasehold rights are mortgaged, the enforcement regime under the SARFAESI Act does not displace the public authority's independent right under the Public Premises Act to terminate the lease and proceed against unauthorized occupation; a mere show cause notice is ordinarily not amenable to writ interference.

---