HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 18419 of 2009 DATED: 09.10.2009 Between: M. Rama Subhash ..... PETITIONER AND Industrial Development Bank of India ...RESPONDENT O R D E R:- The petitioner states that he took Flat No.1, Ground Floor, Narasimha Complex, Zeba Bagh, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad situated at H.No.12-2-879/3 on lease from one D. Ajay Babu, who is the owner of the property, for a period of two years with effect from 01.11.2008 and since then he has been paying rents regularly. While so, he states that the respondent-Bank without issuing any notice filed Crl. M.P. No. 2915 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act”) and obtained order dated 28.07.2009 appointing Sri. E. Devender Kumar, as Advocate Commissioner, to take possession of the flat and handover the same to the respondent-bank, for further proceedings. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that based on that order, the Advocate Commissioner, is threatening him to evict the petitioner from the premises in question, for handing over the same to the respondent-bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is a tenant of the property in question, which is alleged to have been mortgaged by D.Ajay Babu, the owner of the property, with the respondent-bank, and as such, he is entitled to issuance of notice before he is asked to vacate the premises, but the respondent-bank without informing the petitioner, got an Advocate Commissioner appointed through Court, and got a notice issued, which was received by the petitioner on 28.08.2009, directing him to vacate the premises within seven days, which according to the petitioner, is not valid. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank submitted that D.Ajay Babu, who is the owner of the property in question, obtained loan from the respondent-bank by mortgaging the property in question, and as he failed to repay the loan, the respondent-bank initiated proceedings against the petitioner, who is residing in the scheduled property. That in pursuance of the orders dated 28.07.2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2915 of 2009 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, the Advocate Commissioner, took steps to take over the possession of the property in question from the petitioner and hand over the same to the respondent-bank. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Industrial Development Bank of India and perused the material placed on record. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. However, taking into consideration the nature of urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was issued to him nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him to put forth his grievance before he is asked to vacate the premises, this Court ordered personal notice to the respondent-bank on 02.09.2009, and subsequently directed both the parties to maintain Status Quo. The Advocate Commissioner, in pursuance of the orders, dated 28.07.2009 in Crl.M.P. No.2915 of 2009 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, issued notice to the petitioner directing him to vacate the premises in question. The petitioner received the same on 28.08.2009. The petitioner is fully aware of the non-payment of the loan amount by the owner of the property. The petitioner being only a tenant, and not being the owner of the property, which is sought to be taken possession and handed over to the respondent-bank, has no right whatsoever to seek stay of his dispossession of the property. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the violation of any of his tenancy rights, then his remedy is to proceed against the landlord who leased out the property to him, but he cannot seek directions against the respondent-bank, which with a view to recover the dues from the loanee, who happens to be the owner of the property in question, sought to seek delivery of the same. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to grant three month’s time to vacate the premises in question. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of granting two weeks’ time to the petitioner to make necessary arrangements to vacate the premises in question and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent-bank. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 09.10.2009 bcj