IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19906 of 2008 Between: M/s. Krishna Hollywood, D.No.9-20-14, Main Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, rep. by its Proprietor Smt.A.Malathi W/o. A.Krishna Kumar aged about 29 years, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Authorised Officer, Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the resposndent not to dispossess the petitioner from the Scheduled premises bearing D.No.9-20-14, Assessment No. 21980, situated in main Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, in pursuant of the impugned Notice dt. 5.9.2008 issued under Section 13 (4) (D) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, duly declaring the said impugned Notice dt. 5.9.2008 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19906 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner- M/s Krishna Hollywood, represented by its proprietor A.Malathi assailing the action of the respondent in trying to take possession of the premises pursuant to the notice dated 5-9- 2008 issued under Section 13(4)(D) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after referred to “Securitization Act’) 2. The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the premises, which is oﬀerred as security for the loan availed by Sri Chebolu Venkata Surya Radha Krishna. The respondent Bank initiated proceedings against the borrower namely Chebolu Venkata Surya Radha Krishna for realization of the amount by invoking the provisions of the Securitization Act. A notice under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitization Act was issued to the owner of the premises. The petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the respondent may dispossess him basing on the order under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitization Act. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, notice before admission came to be ordered on 12-9-2008. Respondent entered appearance and ﬁled counter. Various stages of proceedings initiated against the owner of the premises who oﬀered it as security to loan availed by him have been detailed in the counter-aﬃdavit of the respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a tenant of the premises which is oﬀered as security for the loan availed by the owner. He further submits that the petitioner cannot be dispossess basing on the order passed under sub-section 4 of Section 13 of the Securitization Act. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner cannot resist the proceedings initiated against owner of the premises, who borrowed the money from the respondent-Bank. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner claims to be a tenant of the premises. Since the bank has already initiated proceedings and obtained order under sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of the Securitization Act, the petitioner being a tenant cannot resist the steps proposed consequent to the order passed under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within three months from today. The petitioner shall give an undertaking within two weeks from today to the respondent-Bank that he will hand over the possession of the premises to the respondent on or before expiry of three months. No order as to costs. _______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 3rd November, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19906 OF 2008 3rd November, 2008.