THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.18524 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioners obtained a housing loan for a sum of Rs.6,42,000/- from the first respondent Bank in the year 2005 by mortgaging the property in question. As they have committed default, the respondent Bank issued notice, dated 14.03.2007, under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioners. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioners approached the respondent-Bank and paid certain amounts on different dates. The petitioners state that though their account has never been classified as Non-performing Asset, the respondents are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No.7-4-243, Ferozguda, Navjeevan Nagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Bank contended that after issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, the Bank issued notice under Section 13(4) of the Act and possession notice on 12.07.2007 and 15.09.2009 respectively, and thereafter, it obtained proceedings on 06.11.2007 from the District Collector, Rangareddy District to take possession of the secured assets. He further contended that once the account of the petitioners has been classified as Non-performing Asset, installments cannot be granted. 3. Since the respondent Bank obtained proceedings, dated 06.11.2007, from the District Collector, Rangareddy District, to take possession of the property in question, we asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to deposit half of the loan amount and to give an undertaking to that effect so as to give an opportunity to the petitioners, for which, he expressed the inability of the petitioners. Therefore, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners in this writ petition. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:18.08.2010 sj