THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.19634 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) The petitioner states that she purchased the flat bearing No.301, admeasuring 900 Square feet , 2nd floor, situated at Nirmal Vihar Apartments, Agresen Colony, Gupta Gardens, Kamala Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad, from M/s.Nirmal Constructions Company vide registered document, dated 29.05.2001, and that she availed loan from the Andhra Bank by mortgaging the said flat and the same is being repaid by her. While so, the respondent Bank issued notice, dated 27.08.2008, under Section 8(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, stating that the said flat is owned by one Sri P. Ramarao, who stood as a guarantor to one M/s.Lab Requisites, by mortgaging the said flat. Since M/s.Lab Requisites, the main borrower, had failed to repay the loan amount of Rs.8,14,921.54ps, the respondent Bank is taking measures under the Act against the said P. Rama Rao by issuing the notice impugned. The petitioner states that the said Ramarao is a resident of flat No.201 and is neither the owner nor has any right or title over flat No.301 and that though there is no transaction between the petitioner and the respondent Bank, the Bank is proceeding to take possession of her flat. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. 2. On 12.09.2008, this Court, while admitting the writ petition granted interim suspension of the said notice. 3. The respondent-Bank filed vacate stay petition stating that one Smt. Neena Sarathi, who is running the business in the name and style as M/s.Lab Requisites, availed a loan for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs by way of cash credit facility from the respondent Bank for running her business and that her husband P. Parthasarathi and her brother-in-law P. Rama Rao stood as guarantors. It is further stated that the said P. Rama Rao had purchased flat No.301 from the petitioner through the registered sale deed, dated 13.08.1990 and mortgaged the same towards security for the loan obtained by Smt Neena Sarathi. Since the borrower and the guarantors have failed to repay the said loan amount, the respondent Bank has filed O.A.No.147 of 2005 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and obtained recovery certificate. The petitioner neither objected nor raised any claim before the Tribunal in respect of the said property and now, the present writ petition is filed in collusion with the said P. Ramarao, P. Pardhasarathi and P. Neena Sarathi with an intention to obstruct the recovery proceedings. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank. 4. Since the said P. Ramarao stood as guarantor to M/s. Lab Requisites by mortgaging the flat bearing No.301, the respondent Bank is proceeding to take possession of the said property. Admittedly, the loan transaction is between M/s.Lab Requisites and its guarantors. This shows that the petitioner is no way concerned to the loan obtained by Smt Neena Sarathi from the respondent Bank. The petitioner, in her affidavit, stated that she had purchased the flat bearing No.301 from M/s. Nirmal Constructions Company vide registered document, dated 29.05.2001, whereas the respondent Bank in its counter-affidavit stated that that Sri P. Rama Rao had purchased the said flat from the petitioner vide registered sale deed, dated 13.08.1990. Further, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent Bank. However, the ownership of the flat bearing No.301 is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in this writ petition. Hence, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:11.08.2010 sj