THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14474 of 2010 Dated: 30.6.2010 Between: M. Srinivas ..PETITIONER And State Bank of India and another. ..RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14474 of 2010 Order: (Per Sri Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is mis-conceived inasmuch as there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Assailing the action of the 1st respondent-bank in seeking to evict the petitioner from the premises bearing H. No. 1-3-183/40/101/1, Bharani Avenue, SBI Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. According to the petitioner, he has taken the aforesaid premises on rent from the 2nd respondent herein. While so, he came to know that the 2nd respondent herein has borrowed certain amount from the 1st respondent by creating security in respect the property in question and when he failed to repay the amount, a notice under Section 13(2)of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ’the Act’). When the 2nd respondent failed to repay the loan even thereafter, the 1st respondent initiated measures under Section 13(4) of the Act and put the property to sale by way of public auction. Assailing the auction notice, the 2nd respondent appeared to have filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the same is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner-tenant filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the 1st respondent is trying to evict the petitioner from the premises in question without following the due process of law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, while drawing our attention to Section 13(13) of the Act states that the 2nd respondent borrower having received notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, cannot give the premises in question on lease, without its prior consent. Since the 2nd respondent has given the premises in question on lease without obtaining any such consent from the 1st respondent-bank, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Section 13(13) of the Act reads thus: (13) No borrower shall, after receipt of notice referred to in sub- section (2), transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise (other than in the ordinary course of his business) any of his secured assets referred to in the notice, without prior written consent of the secured creditor. Having perused the aforesaid provision, we are of the view that the 2nd respondent, being the principal borrower in respect of the loan advanced by the 1st respondent bank, having committed default of the loan amount ought not to have leased out the premises to the petitioner, especially on receipt of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, without the prior consent of the 1st respondent bank. Since the 2nd respondent has given the premises in question on lease to the petitioner without obtaining any such prior written consent from the 1st respondent-bank, the action of the 1st respondent bank in trying to evict the petitioner cannot be found fault with. We also deem that the 2nd respondent having failed to obtain any interim order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal has very cleverly inducted the petitioner to file the present writ petition. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 30th June, 2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J pnb