Uppalapati Koteswara Rao vs City Union Bank Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 5471 AP

     HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI


      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
                          AND
         HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI


               WRIT PETITION No.30499 OF 2021



      Mr. Uppalapati Koteswara Rao
      Cultivation, R/o. D.No.9-149/1,
      Kavuru Village,
      Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District.

                                           ...             Petitioner

                                  Versus

   1. City Union Bank Limited rep. by its Branch Manager,
      Narasaraopet Branch, Guntur District

   2. The Authorized Officer, City Union Bank Limited,
      Administrative Office, 24-B, Gandhinagar,
      Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu State

   3. Naidu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Singaraiah
      42 Years, Cultivation, D.No.9-149/1, Kavuru Village,
      Chilakaluripet Mandal, Guntur District

                                           ...         Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. G. V. S. Mehar Kumar , Advocate

Counsel for the respondents : -

ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 24.12.2021

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. G. V. S. Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the e-auction notice issued

under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'), by which the property of

which he is in possession of is sought to be sold for realization of

the loan taken by the respondent no. 3 from the respondent

no.1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is

tenant of the property, which is sought to be auctioned and

being aggrieved by the action of the respondents no.1 and 2 with

regard to the possession notice dated 21.09.2021 of the

premises he had moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), in

S.A.No.358 of 2021, in which, by order dated 21.10.2021 on

I.A.No.1604 of 2021, there was an interim order that the

petitioner would deposit monthly rent with the respondent -

Bank into the loan account of the borrower and there was also

order not to dispossess the petitioner from the scheduled

mentioned property in pursuance of the possession notice dated

21.09.2021. Learned counsel contended that the sale would lead

to there being threat of dispossession by the purchaser and the

Court may protect him.

4. Having considered the matter, the Court does not find any

merit in the writ petition. The petitioner, admittedly, is the

tenant in the property, which is secured asset with the

respondents no.1 and 2 for loan taken by the respondent no.3.

Thus, the respondents no.1 and 2 have right to take recourse to

the SARFAESI Act, for recovery of such loan amount. Moreover,

the action assailed is with regard to the e-auction of the

property. This obviously means that the ownership/title of the

property would pass on to a third person i.e., auction purchaser.

The petitioner being a tenant, cannot resist or have any claim on

such transaction, as he does not have right or title over the

property as he is a mere tenant. Thus, the petitioner, by the

action of the respondents no.1 and 2 in going for e-auction of the

property cannot be said to be a cause of action for the petitioner

to assail such exercise. The petitioner is already protected by the

interim order passed by the Tribunal with regard to him not

being dispossessed and thus, his interest is sufficiently

safeguarded.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending also, stand disposed

of.

________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH,J)

________________________ (B. S. BHANUMATHI,J)

C.C. on 28.12.2021 B/o. Pab

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI

WRIT PETITION No.30499 OF 2021

Date : 24-12-2021

Pab