JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J

Subject matter of both the Writ Petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. We have heard Mr. T.Vijaya Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.Dyumani learned counsel for the respondent – Andhra Bank.

3. These two Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that action of the respondent – Andhra Bank in seizing and taking over physical possession of the schedule properties through advocate commissioner without serving any notice on the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. Further prayer made is for a direction to the respondent – Andhra Bank to redeliver the schedule property to the petitioners.

4. It is stated that petitioners are tenants of the schedule property belonging to respondent No.2, who is the landlord. As per description given in the supporting affidavit, petitioners had taken on rent respective premises each measuring about 680 sq. yards wherefrom they are carrying on their jewellery business. Petitioners have been paying rent to respondent No.2 for the last several years. The schedule property is situated at Jammikunta village in Karimnagar district in the State of Telangana.

5. It is stated that petitioners have filed civil suits in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, seeking permanent and temporary injunctions against the respondents from evicting the petitioners from their respective premises. Principal Junior Civil Judge has passed injunction order in each of the suits.

6. According to the petitioners they are third parties having no knowledge about any transaction between respondent No.1-Andhra Bank and respondent No.2 – Jadala Nagarani as they are tenants of the schedule property. However, respondent No.1-Andhra Bank, in a high handed manner took over physical possession of the schedule property on 19.11.2019. Petitioners have contended that action of respondent No.1-Andhra Bank in approaching the Metropolitan Magistrate without disclosure of the fact that the schedule property was in occupation of tenants i.e. petitioners amounts to suppression of facts. Under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘SARFAESI Act’), respondent No.1-Andhra Bank was under an obligation to disclose that the physical possession of the schedule property was with the petitioners. But this crucial fact was suppressed. According to the petitioners, the landlord i.e. respondent No.2 is trying to evict the tenants i.e. the petitioners from the schedule property by misusing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Impugned action is not only violative of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, but is also in violation of the injunction orders of the civil court.

7. Aggrieved thereby, these two Writ Petitions have been filed seeking the above reliefs.

8. This Court by order dated 06.01.2020, issued notices.

9. Respondent No.1 i.e. Andhra Bank has filed identical counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. Counter affidavits have been filed through Mr. N.Srinivas, who at the time of filing the affidavits, was serving as Chief Manager of the Warangal main branch of Andhra Bank and was also the authorized officer for KMC Campus branch of Andhra Bank. As the two affidavits are identical, for the sake of convenience, we take up the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.100 of 2020.

(i) According to respondent No.1-Andhra Bank, petitioners have an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and without exhausting the aforesaid remedy, have filed the two writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions should not be entertained.

(ii) On merit it is contended that M/s. Jadala Traders is a partnership firm in which husband of respondent No.2 is a partner. Respondent No.2 availed cash credit limit