Sanjay Kumar, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereinafter 'the Appellate Tribunal'), dismissing her Appeal No.287 of 2013 filed under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity, 'the SARFAESI Act'). She seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the same and to consequently direct the Indian Bank (hereinafter 'the bank') to drop all further proceedings initiated by it under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

2. The aforestated appeal was filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter 'the Tribunal), in S.A.No.129 of 2008. This securitisation application was filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to set aside the sale of the house property bearing Municipal No.11-24-256, Desaipet Road, Pochamma Maidan, Warangal, by the bank in exercise of powers under the SARFAESI Act. The SA was dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners mother, Jannu Mariyamma, the third respondent herein, had mortgaged the subject house property as security for the housing loan of Rs.4,00,000/- obtained by her from the bank in March, 2006. The loan was repayable in 108 monthly instalments of Rs.5,500/- each, commencing from June, 2006. The construction of the house was completed in February, 2007. Owing to the default in repayment of the housing loan, the bank declared the same a non-performing asset and issued demand notice dated 12.06.2007 to the third respondent under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act requiring her to pay the sum of Rs.4,33,422/- along with interest. It was only thereafter that the third respondent executed registered gift settlement deed dated 03.11.2007, bearing Document No.366 of 2007, renouncing all her rights and interest in the subject house property in favour of her daughter, the petitioner herein, without any monetary consideration. This gift settlement deed was admittedly executed by the third respondent without obtaining the prior written consent of the bank.

4. While so, as the third respondent failed to pay the amount due in terms of its demand notice dated 12.06.2007, the bank proceeded under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and auctioned the subject house property on 10.12.2007. The fourth respondent herein emerged as the successful bidder in the said sale. Aggrieved by this sale, the petitioner filed S.A.No.129 of 2008 before the Tribunal, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Her case therein was that she was the owner and possessor of the subject house property pursuant to the registered gift settlement deed dated 03.11.2007 executed in her favour by her mother and, having stepped into the shoes of her mother, she was entitled to protect her interest. She sought to assail the auction sale in favour of the fourth respondent herein on various grounds. The bank however contested her locus by pointing out that she could not claim lawful ownership over the subject house property pursuant to the registered gift settlement deed dated 03.11.2007 as it was executed after issuance of the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.06.2007 and was hit by Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. The bank therefore asserted that she had no locus standi to file the securitisation application.

5. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the petitioner was neither a borrower nor a guarantor for the loan secured by the third respondent from the bank. The pivotal question framed by the Tribunal was as to whether the petitioner would have the right to challenge the action taken by the bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in relation to the subject house property. Taking note of the provisions of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal opined that the transfer of title in the subject house property by the third respondent to her daughter, the pet