Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.:

This Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of an unsuccessful writ petitioner and is directed against an order dated July 6, 2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application with a finding that IDBI Home Finance Ltd., one of the respondents, took possession of the property in question in exercise of its statutory right as the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such, the remedy of the writ-petitioner lay before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.

According to the writ-petitioner, one Uttam Mondal took loan from the Manager HSBC Ltd. for purchasing the flat in question at the ground floor of premises No.9A Canal Road from one Debasis Roy, the owner of the flat and a deed was also registered in favour of the said person by the owner-vendor of the said flat on 28th July, 2004. The said Uttam Mondal having failed to repay the loan, the concerned Bank issued a demand notice under Section 13 of the Act and ultimately, took possession of the said flat in exercise of power conferred under Section 13(4) of the Act as the said flat was mortgaged with HSBC Ltd as condition of loan. The notice of taking possession was also published in the news papers, viz. Hindustan Times and Ajkal. The said flat having been advertised for sale according to the provision of the Act at the instance of the HSBC Ltd., the writ-petitioner after having responded to the notice of the sale, purchased the said flat from the concerned Bank, viz. HSBC Ltd. vide deed of purchase dated 24th December, 2008 and since the date of purchase, she was in peaceful possession of the said flat. All of a sudden, on 15th February, 2010 some persons of IDBI Home Finance Ltd. claimed that the said flat was charged under a loan which was disputed by the writ-petitioner but in spite of that the IDBI Home Finance Ltd. forcibly took possession of the said flat in exercise of the purported power under Section 13 of the Act. According to the writ-petitioner, neither the writ-petitioner nor his predecessor had ever entered into any agreement with the IDBI Home Finance Ltd., nor did they mortgage the said property in its favour. As indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge without entering into the aforesaid question decided to dismiss the writ-application on the very first day on the ground of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Act. In this appeal, we called upon the IDBI Home Finance Ltd. to place before us the materials on the basis of which it exercised its supposed power under Section 13(4) of the Act. Pursuant to such direction, the IDBI Home Finance Ltd. has affirmed an affidavit and it appears from the said affidavit that one Goutam Kumar Bose and another Bharati Rani Bose for the purpose of purchasing the selfsame flat, took loan of Rs.5 lakh by a sanction-letter dated 30th June, 2004 with an agreement to mortgage the flat as condition of repayment of the loan in its favour. However, the said Goutam Kumar Bose and Bharati Rani Bose did not pay off the amount nor did they purchase the flat and at the same time, no deed could be produced showing that the then lawful owner of the property ever mortgaged the same in favour of the IDBI Home Finance Ltd. In view of the aforesaid fact, we find that there was no valid mortgage in favour of the IDBI Home Finance Ltd. in respect of the flat in question either at the instance of the writ-petitioner or his predecessor, who was undisputedly the owner of the property. The IDBI Home Finance Ltd., as it appears from record, on the basis of an agreement with two persons, viz. Goutam Kumar Bose and Bharati Rani Bose, exercised its alleged right under Section 13 of the Act although by v