IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH 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 . 11759 OF 2005 Between: M/s. Renuka Wines, Nahavalasa, rep. by Pathiwada Ramu, Denkonda Mandal, Vizianagaram District and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Excise II) Department, Secretairat Buildings, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 11759 OF 2005 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no further orders are required in the writ petition and it has become infructuous. Recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 07.10.2009 Stp 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 direct the first respondent to follow the due process of law while evicting the petitioner. 2. The third respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the writ petitioner and executed a demand promissory note. 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 submitted that the petitioner is the lawful tenant of the premises by virtue of the lease deed and that he does not aware of the fact that his landlord-third respondent obtained loan from the respondent Bank and committed default in payment of loan amount. He further submitted that the petitioner lent a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the third respondent and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the proposed action of the respondent Bank for evicting 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. The third respondent prior to execution of the alleged lease deed, mortgaged the premises in favour of the respondent Bank for obtaining loan amount and committed defaulted in payment of loan amount. Since the third respondent committed default in payment of loan amount, the respondent bank initiated proceedings for recovery of the loan amount under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner cannot 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 open to the petitioner to take steps for claiming damages 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