THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.11462 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-Bank in dispossessing the petitioner from the house bearing No.8-1-168/2, Pragati Colony at Mailardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in pursuance of the order, dated 17.03.2010, passed in Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was the tenant in respect of the above said house under a lease deed, dated 05.07.2004, from the owner by name Sri S. Sriramulu, initially, for a period of 11 months on monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-and the same has been enhanced from time to time and presently, at Rs.3,000/-. While so, on 03.05.2010, the officials of the respondent Bank came to the said house to take possession of the same as the said plot of land mortgaged towards security of a loan transaction provided by it to some Industry, which defaulted in payment of the loan amount, as such, it had initiated measures under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) by filing Crl.M.P.No.81 of 2010, wherein, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, by the impugned order, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property in question. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The respondent-Bank filed a counter-affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is stated that as the borrower company and its guarantors have committed default in repayment of the loan amount availed by it, the respondent Bank filed O.A.No.72 of 2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,74,50,366-43ps together with future interest and costs and thereafter, initiated recovery proceedings under the Act by issuing a demand notice, dated 12.08.2009, to the borrower Company and its guarantors and even after expiry of the stipulated period, the loan amount was not paid and therefore, the Bank had issued notice, dated 28.01.2010, for taking symbolic possession of the secured assets. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Inasmuch as it is represented by the learned counsel on either side that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the owner, who leased out the property in question to the petitioner, had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing S.A.No.165 of 2010 and the same is pending, it is open to the petitioner to make appropriate application in the said S.A. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived since there is no privity of contract between the parties. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:02.08.2010 sj