IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No . 19956 OF 2009 Between: Cheepulla Ramakrishna ..... PETITIONER AND Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Resolution Centre, Administrative Unit, Siripuram Junction , Balajinagar, Visakhapatnam and others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19956 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in trying to take forcible possession of the Flat No.2, Door No.32-1-186/34, Pragathi Complex, Prabhat (Block-C), Market Ward, Atchayampet, Visakhapatnam, (for short ‘the premises’) as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the first respondent not to evict the petitioner without following due process of law. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the third respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the writ petitioner and executed a demand promissory note and in pursuance of the said transaction, the third respondent let out the premises to the petitioner. While so, the respondent Bank affixed possession notice on the door of the premises on 4.8.2009 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short ‘the Act’). On 13.08.2009, the first respondent came to the premises and stated that the petitioner has to vacate the premises and deliver possession of it within two days, failing which they would take forcible possession of the premises from the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the lawful tenant of the premises by virtue of the lease deed and that he is not aware of the fact that his landlord-third respondent herein obtained loan from the respondent Bank and committed default in payment of the same. He further contended that the petitioner lent a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the third respondent and he executed a demand promissory note in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the proposed action of the respondent Bank to evict the petitioner from the premises is not sustainable under law. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the respondent Bank and the petitioner. The petitioner is a third party. The petitioner is said to be the tenant of the premises by virtue of the alleged lease deed entered into between him and the third respondent. Prior to execution of the alleged lease deed, the third respondent mortgaged the premises in favour of the respondent Bank for obtaining loan amount and thereafter, committed default in payment of the same. Since the third respondent committed default in payment of loan amount, the respondent bank initiated proceedings for recovery of the same under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner cannot, therefore, prevent the respondent Bank from discharging its statutory functions as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. However, it is left open to the petitioner to take steps for claiming damages, if any, before the appropriate forum against the third respondent, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 05.10.2009 Stp