HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28362 OF 2010 Between: V. Vishwaprasad S/o Sriramamurthy aged about 37 years ………….Petitioner AND Central Bank of India represented by its authorized Officer and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the action of the first respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from Flat No. 110, Ganapathi Apartments, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad without issuing any notice and reasonable opportunity, the present Writ Petition is filed. This Writ Petition is misconceived inasmuch as there is no privity of contract existing between the borrower and the guarantor. The petitioner is a tenant who has occupied the premises on rental basis in June 2010 i.e. after the property was mortgaged to the bank. The bank has already filed a Civil Suit before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 19(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for realisation of the amount due and payable by the borrower to an extent of Rs. 35 lakhs and odd. As the borrower and guarantor remained silent and they have not participated in the proceedings ultimately the suit was ended in ex-parte decree and recovery certificate was issued and thereafter the borrower has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree on 4.7.2008 and that application was allowed and the matter is still pending. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, any aggrieved person can file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and even during the pendency of the appeal, the Bank is trying to take steps against the petitioner. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: “Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub- section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may prefer an appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. (2) Where an appeal is preferred by a borrower, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal unless the borrower has deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal seventy five percent of the amount claimed in the notice referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 13: Provided that the Debts Recovery Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall, as far s may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder.” On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner himself gave an undertaking stating that he will vacate the premises and he will give the vacant possession of the property on 15.11.2010 by 12 noon, but instead of vacating the premises he filed the present Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner herein gave an undertaking letter on 13.11.2010 stating that he will vacate the premises and give vacant possession of the property on 15.11.2010 by 12.00 noon and insptie of it, he has not vacated the premises. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court in SLP (c ) No. 10145 of 2010 dated 26th July 2010 at paragraph 27 of the judgment observed as under: “27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SRFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the above observation of the Supreme Court in SLP (C ) No. 10145 of 2010, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, to meet the ends of justice, we hereby grant two weeks time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR , J DATE: 16.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.