IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 218 of 1999 Between: P.Balakrishnaiah, S/o Acharyulu, R/o.Obulanaidupalem, Pathuru Village, Gutur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1) The Bank of Baroda, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Guntur. 2) M/s. Sri Rama Agro-Chemical Industries, Rep. by its Partner P.Paranchamaiah, Guntur. 3) The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Hudson Circle, Bangalore. 4) The Regional Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Krishi Bhavan, Bangalore. .....RESPONDENTS 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 declaring the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent in O.A.No.846/96, dt:31.10.1997 and all the proceedings relating thereto including the consequential notice dt:29.12.1998, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner in E.P.No.262/85 re-numbered as O.A.No.846/96 on the file of the 3rd Respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: MRS.P.BALA RANI The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Vilas V.Afzulpurkar, J) Petitioner claims to be a lessee of 82 cents in survey No.132/3. He states that he has obtained lease on 11.07.1981 from the second respondent and that he made certain investments. While so, the first respondent-bank filed a suit in O.S.No.243/1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, for recovery of money against the second respondent, who was the borrower. The said suit was later transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal after enactment of the Central Act 51 of 1993. The Tribunal laid notices by registering the case as O.A.No.846/1996. In spite of notices, none of the respondents appeared and thereupon the Tribunal granted recovery certificate under its order dated 31.10.1997. The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he had filed a claim petition while E.P. proceedings arising out of the suit were pending and the said claim petition remained undisposed and thereby questions the action of recovery by the bank in pursuance of the recovery certificate. We heard both the learned counsels for the petitioners and we have examined the records. The lease as claimed by the petitioner, even according to him, would have expired in 1993. When this writ petition was admitted by this Court on 12.01.1999 notice was ordered but no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Further, the lease admittedly is subsequent to the loan obtained by the second respondent/borrower and the first respondent-bank being a secured creditor having rights much prior, to the leasehold rights of the petitioner, no enforceable legal right subsists in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _________________________ VILAS V.AFZALPURKAR, J 10th February, 2009 SUR/DSK