IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.27509 of 2009 Between: Saumya Medicare International Ltd., represented by Dr.C.Suresh and two others. … Petitioners And 1. The Debts Recovery Tribunal. 2. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.27509 of 2009 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) For due recovery of the loan availed by the petitioners the second respondent-Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., filed O.A.No.7 of 2006, in which the petitioners filed a counter claim and the second respondent also filed I.A.Nos.623, 624 and 627 of 2008 in O.A.No.7 of 2006 for issuance of a garnishee order over lease granted due to the petitioners. On hearing the said I.As., the O.A. was taken up for hearing and the same was at the stage of petitioners/respondents’ evidence. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1294 of 2009 for receiving additional evidence and when the enquiry of the interim application was pending, they also filed I.A.No.1387 of 2009 to dismiss the O.A. as not maintainable, contending that the second respondent has licence/certificate of registration under National Housing Bank Act, 1897 (for brevity, “NHB Act”) as a housing finance company and the said NHB Act only permits borrowers for residential house. NHB Act defines borrower, which does not permit the respondent/applicant to have any other class of borrowers other than for residential housing loan. In view of the same, the O.A. filed by the second respondent cannot be maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini and filed the present writ petition to decide the issue as a preliminary issue. The docket order Ex.P2 dated 19.06.2009 filed along with the writ petition discloses that both the counsel agreed for early disposal of O.A., on condition that the lessee has to deposit the entire lease rentals before the Tribunal @ Rs.24,75,000/- and the enhanced rent, if any, on or before 7th of every month starting from the month of July, 2009. Since both the counsel agreed for early disposal of the O.A., filing the present I.A. in November, 2009 insisting for deciding the maintainability of the O.A. as a preliminary issue, is not at all warranted. As the main O.A. is already ripe for hearing, the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners about the maintainability of the O.A. can also be considered as one of the issues while disposing of the O.A. In view of the same, we dispose of the writ petition directing the Tribunal to dispose of the O.A. expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, including the maintainability of the O.A. filed by the petitioners, by reasoned order. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J _____________ K.C.BHANU, J 17th December 2009 LMV