APHC010152842026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3575] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX WRIT PETITION NO: 7940/2026 Between: 1. BONU TEJA SRI, D/O K.B. RAMAKRISHNA 5-160, BASIVIREDDY PETA, PEDAPUDI MANDALAM, VTC GANDREDU, PO GANDREDU, PEDAPUDI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533344. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, D.NO. 1-83-43, PLOT NO.204/4, MVP COLONY BRANCH, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530017 2. K JYOTHSNA, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, NEAR JAGADAMBA JUNCTION, PRAKASARAO PETA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002 3. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL DRT, 54, 31-32-54, CHITRALAYA ROAD, NEAR LEELAMAHAL ROAD, DABA GARDENS, JAGADAMBA JUNCTION, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530004 ...RESPONDENT(S): CORAM: HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present: Mrs. N.Rajani, Advocate for petitioner. *** WP-7940-2026 -2- LISA GILL,J: Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside action of respondents in issuance of Vacation Notice; taking of physical possession of the scheduled property as detailed in the writ petition, in view of the order dated 06.03.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam under Section 14 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short “SARFAESI Act”). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings under SARFAESI Act were initiated by respondent-Bank with regard to property in question. Petitioner, who is a tenant on said premises, came to know about the same when sale notice was pasted on premises on 28.11.2025. Upon enquiry being made, it came to light that owner of the property had obtained loan from respondent No.1-Bank and on his failure to repay the same proceedings under SARFAESI Act, were undertaken. 3. It is submitted that petitioner is a tenant on the scheduled property, which had been let out to her by the owner after lump-sum deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- vide rental agreement dated 20.06.2024, for a period of eleven months. Term of agreement came to an end on 22.05.2025. Petitioner requested the owner to renew the terms and conditions, but the owner kept postponing the same on some pretext or the other and neither returned the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. Petitioner filed a civil suit against respondents i.e., O.S No.9 of 2026 before the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam, seeking permanent injunction for restraining them and their henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession of petitioner over the property in question. Said suit is pending adjudication, however, Vacation Notice dated 14.03.2026 was received by petitioner from Advocate Commissioner. Petitioner filed an application before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal for necessary relief. WP-7940-2026 -3- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated by the respondent-Bank are illegal and arbitrary; loan sanctioned by respondent No.1 is fraudulent as it has been sanctioned without proper verification of title of the borrower and without considering the fact that petitioner is a tenant on the property in question. Therefore, possession thereof cannot be taken without affording proper opportunity to the present petitioner. It is, thus, prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and have perused the file with her assistance. 6. It is to be noted at the outset that petitioner is provided with an efficacious alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act and in fact, it is the case of petitioner herself that she has already availed of it. 7. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a catena of cases that interference by High Court in such like matters should be minimal and actuated only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 and M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. And others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 771. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance in the present case which calls for interference by this Court at this stage. Arguments as raised before us are very well within the realm of consideration by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal. Petitioner is at liberty to raise all available pleas in the pending S.A. filed by her before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal. 9. No other arguments were raised. WP-7940-2026 -4- 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition is disposed of, without expression of any opinion on the merits of the matter, with liberty to petitioner to pursue the matter before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal while urging all available pleas. No costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE Date:31.03.2026 Ksj