IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20476 of 2007 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 25818 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO : 20476 of 2007 Between: Taher Pasha S/o Sk. mukthar, R/oMiryalaguda, Nalgonda district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Manager, SBH. (Main), Miryalaguda, Branch at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district. 2 The Authorised Officer, Exercising the Power of Sale, State Bank of Hyderabad (Main) Miryalaguda Branch at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directingthe respondents herein to issue the sale certificate andto handover the possession of the schedule 'B' property i.e, House bearing No. 24-1, situated in front of SBH Miryalaguda, Main Branch, at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District andto pass any other Writ, or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just andproper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.A.PULLA REDDY & ABHISHEK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 25818 of 2007 Between: Gunda Ravi Gupta S/o.Laxmi Narasaiah R/o.Main Bazar, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Authorised Officer/Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda Main Branch, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Mandal Revenue Office, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 3 Tallam Sharadha W/o.Late T.Madhusudhan R/o.5-1/D, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the first respondent and his men in putting up locks to the shop of the petitioner bearing No. 24-1 situated at near State Bank of Hyderabad, Main Branch, Miryalaguda, Rajiv Chowk, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda district is highly arbitrary bad and illegal and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) As these two Writ Petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order. Writ Petition No. 20476 of 2007 has been filed by the purchaser seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the Sale Certificate and to handover the possession of the schedule ‘B’ property i.e., bearing House No. 24-1, situated in front of State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda Main Branch, at Maryalaguda, Nalgonda District to him. Writ Petition No. 25818 of 2007 has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent and his men in putting up locks to the shop of the petitioner bearing House No. 24-1, situated in front of State Bank of Hyderabad, Miryalaguda Main Branch, Rajiv Chowk at Maryalaguda, Nalgonda District as illegal and arbitrary. The third respondent in W.P.No. 25818 of 2007 took a loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for the purpose of rice business run in the name of Sri Padmavathi Super Fopods and a charge is made by way of equitable mortgage in favour of the first respondent-Bank by the husband of the third respondent who has taken loan. The Bank classified the loan account as ‘Non Performing Asset’ on 31.3.1997 and immediately the first respondent-Bank filed O.S.No. 100 of 1997 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,49,143.35 and there after the bank filed E.P. No. 117 of 2005 and the same was closed on 21.8.2000 for the reason that the Bank has initiated action under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short ‘SRFAESI Act’) . It is submitted that the first respondent-Bank under the guise of the decree passed in its favour demanding to vacate the shop inspite of requesting the Authorized Officer to give some time for vacating the shop. Instead of giving time and proceeding lawfully the Authorized Officer and Mandal Revenue Inspector on 28.11.2007 came to his shop and put up locks to his shop by throwing him out of the shop. It is stated that immediately he reported the matter to police but no action is taken. Hence, he filed the Writ Petition No. 25818 of 2007. The petitioner in W.P.No. 20476 of 2007, who is the purchaser participated in auction conducted on 12.4.2007 by the respondent- Bank for the sale of M/s Padmavathi Super Foods mentioned as ‘B’ schedule property and he was declared as successful bidder and he deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- by way of cheque No. 51921 dated 6.8.2007. After receiving the total consideration the first respondent-bank has issued the receipt dated 7.8.2007 acknowledging the said amount but till date neither issued sale certificate nor put the petitioner in possession of ‘B’ schedule property. As far as the petitioner in W.P.No. 20476 of 2007 is concerned it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent-Bank that auction was already conducted on 12.4.2007 in so far as ‘B’ schedule property is concerned and the petitioner became the highest bidder and paid the entire bid amount of Rs. 4,55,000/- and he is entitled to physical possession of the shop and sale certificate. Hence, the first respondent-Bank is directed to deliver the possession of the ‘B’ schedule property including sale certificate to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No. 25818 of 2007 is concerned, the petitioner has been inducted as a tenant and in the absence of any privity of contract, he cannot resist the proceedings taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The proceedings of the SARFAESI Act arises between borrower and the guarantor and not against the tenant. The tenant is in no way connected with these proceedings. If the petitioner is so aggrieved he can take recourse to the civil remedies, which are available to him under law against the land lord but not against the first respondent-bank. Hence, Writ Petition No. 25818 of 2007 is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Writ petition No. 25818 of 2007 is dismissed and Writ Petition No. 20476 of 2007 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt. 30.06.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies