THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR DATED: 23-11-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 26978 OF 2010 Between: Smt. Kankanala Aruna ..... APPELLANT AND IDBI Bank, rep., by its Authorised Officer, Chapal Road, Nampally, Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26978 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from house No. 35-74/6/1 on plot No. 38, Brindavan Colony, RK Puram, Ranga Reddy District without following due process of law; obtaining undertaking dated 17-04-2010 by force and taking Rs.90,000/- as security deposit to vacate the premises in three days as arbitrary, illegal and unjust. She has also prayed for a consequential direction to the first respondent to follow due process of law and refund Rs.90,000/- paid by her. The petitioner states that she is tenant in occupation of the said house and the second respondent is the owner who availed loan from the first respondent – Bank by mortgaging the house property. Since the second respondent committed default, the respondent – Bank initiated action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’). It is the grievance of the petitioner that on 17-04-2010, the authorized officer of the Bank along with staff without any notice forcibly entered into her house and tried to remove household goods and threatened to vacate or else they themselves will throw the items out and will take possession of the house. It is further stated that the authorized officer forced her to give an undertaking to vacate the house by 20-04-2010 and to pay Rs.90,000/- as a security deposit which is also acknowledged by the Bank. The second respondent informed her not to vacate the house since he is ready to pay the arrears of the loan. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is misconceived inasmuch as there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent – Bank since the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are in between the borrower and the Bank. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent who is the borrower has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal for appropriate relief. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies as are open to her under law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 23-11-2010 ks