The petitioners are aggrieved by the move, to dispossess the petitioners, made by the respondent despite the alleged permission granted by the Advocate Commissioner to continue residence in the premises, which has been taken possession through Advocate Commissioner. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank asserts that no such permission has been granted and that the petitioners were evicted from the premises before the filing of the Writ Petition and that the Advocate Commissioner had also given a report to that effect to the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. It may not be proper for this Court to go into such controversies. 2. However, the Advocate Commissioner having filed a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court that, the premises was taken over, there can be no continuance of the petitioner when there are arrears due to the respondent W.P.(C) No. 13235 of 2014 2 Bank. The learned senior counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, more than Rs.2,00,000/- is due to the Bank as the defaulted arrears as also the publication charges. Whatever amounts due as on 31.05.2014 will be communicated to the petitioner by 30.05.2014.
3. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent Bank that, the premises would be returned to the petitioner and the loan be regularized, on the arrears being cleared. In such circumstance, the petitioners are permitted to pay the defaulted arrears with other charges as notified by the Bank, at any time within one month from 31.05.2014. On such payment the premises shall be put back in the possession of the petitioner and on failure the Bank shall be entitled to continue the proceedings against the property.
With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB //True Copy //