Dismissed¶38

Syed Mahmud v. the State Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jun 2025WP/13638/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), W.P. No. 13638 of 2025, decided 16 June 2025 (Dhiraj Singh Thakur CJ and Ravi Cheemalapati J): writ petition by alleged oral tenant facing SARFAESI dispossession by State Bank of India dismissed on the ground of effective alternate remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act; Apex Court precedents Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon relied upon; liberty granted to avail alternate remedy; no costs. Keywords: SARFAESI Act, alternate remedy, Debts Recovery Tribunal, tenant eviction, secured asset, Article 226, writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal; no costs. ¶38

Syed Mahmud Vs the State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI .

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 13638 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Syed Mahmud, S/o. late Syed Akbar, Aged about 46 years,^{Occ:Business,} Residing at D. No. 77-51/1A-17, Payakapuram village^{VijayawadaMunicipal} Corporation limits, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1, The State Bank of India, Gollapudi Branch - 05653,^Vijayawada - 520012, NTR District, represented by its branch manager.

¶11

Thp State of Bank of India., Home loan Centre -II^{(RACPC11-21017),} Door No. 59-13-4, Ghantasala Vari Street, Gayathri Nagar, Viajayawada - 520008, A.P Rep. by its Authorized Signatory^under SARFAESI Act.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more^{particularlyoneinthe} nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of^{theRespondents} in taking steps to dispossess the petitioner and his family^{membersfromthe} RCC building bearing door No. 77-51/1 A-17, situated^{inSy.No.71/1,2and} 3 and Sy. No. 72/1, ward no. 18, Payakapuram village, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation limits, Vijayawada, Krishna District^{undertheguiseof} SARFAESI proceedings without considering my representations and

¶14

requests as being illegal, unfair, arbitrary and apart from violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-Aof the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner and his family members from the RCC building bearing^{doorNo.77-51/1A-} 17, situated in Sy. No. 71/1,2 and 3 and Sy. No. 72/1, ward no.18, Payakapuram village, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation limits, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHILUKURI KARTHIK REPRESENTING SRI V NITESH

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: —

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

¶19

¶20

APHC010240492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-15 [3483] AT AMARAVATI p r*. ur* ■JMfc-S

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO: 13638 of 2025

Syed Mahmud

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Bank of India and another

¶26

...Respondents

¶27

¶28

Advocate for Petitioner Sri Chilukuri Karthik, learned counsel representing Sri V. Nitesh. Advocate for Respondents None

¶29

CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶30

DATE : 16th June 2025

¶31

P C :

¶32

The petitioner claims that he is residing in the property^which is a secured asset as a tenant based upon an oral tenancy.

¶33

It is stated that the petitioner is sought to be evicted from^the premises in question under the provisions of the Securitisation^{andReconstructionof} Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which has been invoked by the respondent bank. It is stated that the petitioner cannot be evicted in view of he being a tenant in the premises in question.

¶34

In view of the fact that the SARFAESI Act provides^an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

¶35

¶36

which can very well be availed by the petitioner, we^{donotfindanyreasonto} interfere at this stage by invoking our extraordinary^jurisdiction considering the ratio of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P./ and United Bank of India vs. Satyawati

¶37

Tondon^.

¶38